Eric, isn't your critique true of a good deal of econometric work?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michael wrote,
>
> > ... claims that the large slave operations were efficient ...
> >
> > Field, Elizabeth B. 1988. "The Relative Efficiency of Slavery
> > Revisited: A Translog Production Function Approach."...
> > Hoffer, R.A. and S.T. Folland. 1991. "The Relative Efficiency of
> > Slave Agriculture: .....
>
> I look at this stuff many years ago. These claims are wrong. I recollect that
> the basic problem is measuring the amount of "labor input" in a slave system.
> It can't be properly measured and, so, very poor proxy measures have to be
> used. Any econometric study of efficiency in slavery is an example of garbage
> in, garbage out.
>
> The basic ideological issue behind this efficiency is the neoclassical
> assumption that what exists is efficient. Slavery existed and, so, it must have
> been efficient (so say the neoclassicals). The concern of neoclassicals is, if
> slavery existed and was not efficient, when then what does this say about
> production within capitalism--it is not necessarily efficient?
>
> Eric
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
