>>If the main results of the
>>LTV and or the LoV whether in a quantitative-qualitative
>>combination or relying singly on quantitative or qualitative
>>approaches adds nothing to what can be achieved in terms of
>>*explanation* without them, then why shouldn't Ockam's razor
>>apply--to concepts, not entities?
>Quite.
But this is a perfect example of a fallacy of marginalism. I think the
strongest anti-LTV/LOV case that you could make in this direction would be
that LTV/LOV don't "add anything to what can be explained by" neoclassical
marginal/general equilibrium theory. But even that would be open to the
objection that it was also true that NC theory didn't "add anything" to
LTV/LOV. It all depends where you start from ...
And in any case, LTV has the considerable technical merit over NC theory
that it offers a non-circular method to measure the capital stock. It also
gives some hope of an explanation of the empirical fact that increases in
productivity do not, in general, lead to a shortening of the working day,
which would be a prediction of utility theory given any sensible assumption
about preferences regarding leisure.
dd
___________________________________________________
Email Disclaimer
This communication is for the attention of the
named recipient only and should not be passed
on to any other person. Information relating to
any company or security, is for information
purposes only and should not be interpreted as
a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security.
The information on which this communication is based
has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable,
but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
All expressions of opinion are subject to change
without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments,
are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes.
___________________________________________________
