Re: cambridge criticism

["Perelman, Michael" <MPerelman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The Cambridge-like argument is stronger for labor than for capital, especially when various workers are involved.  People who do econometrics on sports try to estimate how particular players on a team contribute.  They can do so -- probably not very accurately -- because of the variability of outcomes.  In normal production, economists assume that all workers in a workplace are abstract labor.  But think about a job in which any one failure can screw up the entire project.  What is the marginal productivity of any worker?

 

Even worse, in intellectual property, which is supposed to be the key to the future, how do you figure out who "invented" the computer?  What is common in science is that several teams or individuals are working parallel to each other.  In one of the most famous cases, on February 14, 1876, Alexander Graham Bell's father-in-law submitted Bell's patent for "Improvements in Telegraphy" just hours before Elisha Gray applied for a patent caveat, outlining his idea.

 

Or think of an undergraduate coming out of a university.  How do you figure out how much each teacher, secretary, janitor contributed to the finished product?

 

Michael Perelman

Economics Department

California State University

Chico, CA

95929