Re: Debunking Economics

[Robert Vienneau <rvien@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve,

I think that a measure of value capital cannot be defined prior to the
interest rate, and that is a true and important point. I have no problem
with your presentation of this argument.

I think you perhaps should read Hahn. Full reference:

   Frank H. Hahn, "The Neo-Ricardians", _Cambridge Journal of  Economics_,
Volue 6, pp. 353-374, 1982.

Rebuttals and commentaries:

  Stephen A. Marglin, _Growth, Distribution, and Prices_, Harvard
University Press, 1984.

  G. Dumenil and D. Levy, "The Classicals and the Neoclassicals: A
Rejoinder to Frank Hahn", _Cambridge Journal of Economics_, Volume 9, pp.
327-345, 1985.

  Pierangelo Garegnani, "Sraffa: Classical versus Marginal Analysis," in
_Essays on Piero Sraffa_, (edited by K. Bharadwaj and B. Schefold),
Unwin-Hyman, 1990.

You'll like Dumenil and Levy since their paper is about dynamics. I take
the following claims from this literature:

  o Prices in long period models are not indicies of relative scarcity and
comparisons of long period positions are not about substitution

  o Marginal productivity is a method for analyzing the choice of
technique, not a theory of distribution

  o The CCC points out possible stability problems with short period models

  o Aggregate production functions, production functions with value
measures of capital, and long run demand and supply explanations of prices
and quantities are not well-founded in economic theory.

Suppose a theory of value is supposed to be about systematic relations
between prices and quantities, not merely a lot of mathematics. I don't see
that there is any neoclassical theory of value remaining after the Sraffa
critique.