Re: US TFP Growth

[Paul Altesman <paltesman@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

    As they say: good question.

  I think it is a small matter of nuance ("less than *totally*
neoclassical", I should have added the emphasis).  As I recall hearing the
story, the IMF and the World Bank (partners with the UN on the international
System of National Accounts) pressed hard for putting formal neo-classical
methodologies (well, rhetoric) into the guidelines for estimating capital
assets and the explanatory docs.  The UN tried to remain somewhat agnostic,
fudging the issue with pricing capital at "market" price (yea, I know) but
not attaching a philisophical explanation.  'Its worth what its worth'.
This was a few years back during the last major revision of the SNA, I will
check my recollection with the participants.

But how *should* capital be priced in a non-neoclassical approach to
National Accounts?



 At 11:23 PM 3/6/97 -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:

>At 8:04 PM -0800 3/6/97, Paul Altesman wrote:
>>Even the Perpetual
>>Inventory Model (a hard fought attempt by some in the UN to be less than
>>totally neoclassical)
>
>Why is this less than purely neoclassical?
>
>Isn't this the way the U.S. values its capital stock?
>
>
>Doug
>
>--
>
>Doug Henwood
>Left Business Observer
>250 W 85 St
>New York NY 10024-3217 USA
>+1-212-874-4020 voice  +1-212-874-3137 fax
>email: <mailto:dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>
>web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>
>
>
>