On Fri, 11 Mar 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in response to
my citation of Shaikh, Petrovic and Ochoa (as well as unpublished
work done by some friends and myself):
> I was initially struck by the results of Shaikh and his students, but
> believe they should be taken with several grains of salt; certainly
> not as confirmation of the LTV. It just means that as a matter of
> empirical fact, the distribution of technical compositions of capital
> across sectors is such that values don't diverge much percentage-wise
> from prices of production.
This statement seems to imply a strange requirement for a successful
theory of value: it should not just be true in our world, but it should be
true in all possible worlds. Besides, the studies I cited show that
there is very little to choose between labour values and prices of
production as predictors of market prices: it is not as if p's of p
were "correct" and labour values only an approximation. And finally,
Farjoun and Machover (Laws of Chaos, Verso 1983) have put forward
the argument that the limited dispersion to the distribution of the
composition of capital across industries is *not* accidental -- there
are forces working to limit that dispersion that are as effective
(if not more so) as those working to limit the dispersion of profit-
rates.
Am I tired of the presumption on the part of "sophisticated"
economists that of course the LTV is naive, quaint, an item
in the dustbin of history (of economic thought)? Yes.
Am I willing to back this up with a posting of specific
criticisms of Roemer-Elster arguments, plus specific positive
theoretical arguments for the LTV? Well, maybe. Would anyone
be interested? Well, would they?
==========================
Allin Cottrell
Department of Economics
Wake Forest University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(910) 759-5762
==========================
