Debunking Economics

[John Vertegaal <vertegaa@xxxxxxxxx>]

Steve,

My critique of "Debunking Economics" does not pertain to the main
gist of the book; which, as a superbly demonstrated collection of
NC nonsense, easily qualifies as the most comprehensive book I've
ever read on the subject.  Instead it concerns what I perceive as
internal contradictions and the pushing on strings of the presented
alternatives.

Throughout the book you emphasize the inherent conflict between
(comparative) static and dynamic analysis.  But the former used by
Sraffa is yet "reasonably realistic" in your view, and also that
"mathematics and Marx's philosophy confirm that surplus-value and
hence profit can be generated from any input to production"; even
though you apparently agree with post-GT Keynes that the marginal
efficiency of capital may be indeterminate.  Don't you see a
disparity in these expressions?
Are you sure you are indeed "completely free of the habitual modes
of thought and expression which so troubled Keynes"?

You have certainly shown that "properly used mathematical reasoning
debunks unsound Economics", and I agree that both Marx and Sraffa
have made valuable contributions to our economic understanding; but
if, because of indeterminateness, the economy cannot be modelled
mathematically, isn't the building of alternatives on the shoulders
of M & S dismissing that essence?

I believe to have stated on this forum before, that the tendency of
profit takers wanting to live better than wage earners, and as such
allowing a whole new group of their own class to potentially reach
that same objective (etc....), is the source of so-called "surplus
value".  And that, after arbitrarily having been set over costs
beforehand, the ex post realized "rate of profit" has nothing
whatsoever to do with either the level of wages, or the embodied
means of production in the final product.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but at least there is neither static reasoning,
nor troublesome determinate capital, to get in my way.

congrat's on a good read, and regards

John V.