>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.
I don't accept GET. I'm basically a Robinsonian/Kaleckian institutionalist with a large dash of Austrian thrown in for spice. 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 ... No, I think the LTV fails on its own terms. We do not have empirically equivalent theories. We have a theory that points us in the direction of some good expalantions that can be stated with its apparatus. > >And in any case, LTV has the considerable technical merit over NC theory No doubt. That's not the only alternative. jks _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
