Re: Income = Output?

[Robert Williams <vic93@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Harry Veeder wrote:

Gunnar Tómasson wrote:
<snip>
  

"I sympathise, therefore, with the pre-classical doctrine that everything is
produced by labour [Of course!], aided by what used to be called art and is
now called technique, by natural resources which are free or cost a rent
according to their scarcity or abundance, and by the results of past labour,
embodied in assets, which also command a price according to their scarcity or
abundance.  It is preferable to regard labour, including, of course, the
personal services of the entrepreneur and his assistants as the sole factor of
production, operating in a given environment of technique, natural resources,
capital equipment and effective demand.  This partly explains why we have been
able to take the unit of labour as the sole physical unit which we require in
our economic system, apart from units of money and of time."
    

This sounds like the GT but isn't cited.

As for those who would contend otherwise, let them attempt to make their case - and, in so doing, come to recognize that there is NO refuting Keynes' lucid conclusion.
    

This sounds like the statement of faith of a true believer rather than the an open path to enquiry.   Do forgive those who seek to modify common understanding of Keynesian theoretical implications implications.  Of course all contributions are gratefully received.

Gunnar
    

I accept the pre-classical doctrine, but translating the doctrine into
mathematics is a delicate matter. If one embraces the doctrine, then the
assumption that income is equivalent to output logically implies labour is
exclusively motivated by output.

Harry Veeder


  

----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Williams <mailto:vic93@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Gunnar Tómasson <mailto:gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: US Trade Deficit As 'World Engine Of Growth'?

I wonder if this is why Keynes measured all things in labour units with the
insistence that one distribution of labour would produce one unique level of
output because of the labour that went into it.
Bob Williams
It ignores the implications for monetary economics of Keynes' "conviction"
that one must "commence [by] identify[ing] income with the value of output."