The paper asserts that both neoclassical and Marxist labor value economics are unable to measure "real" capital, and the price proxy is fatally flawed.
The authors triumphantly exclaim, "In every other science, this inability to measure the key category of the theory would be devastating (think of using Newton's notion of gravitation without mass or distance). But not in economics." My understanding is that Newton, and all of classical physics for centuries, did not measure mass directly, unlike distance. Even today we use Newtonian mechanics in many endeavors; we measure and compare weights of objects, that is, their behavior in the gravitational field, primarily of the earth. Physicists take weight as a proxy for mass, the same act that the authors deride when someone takes price as a proxy for value. Similarly, chemists did scientific work for a long time on the molecular relationships between atoms without counting or directly observing atoms. Do the authors really expect a direct measurement of every conceptual entity in a theory? Of course, prices bounce around in presumed ratio to value, while weight is taken to be in strict ratio to mass, so the authors might seem to have point, however faulty their understanding of Newtonian physics and "every other science." One way to proceed is that you can examine influences on the changing ratio. Or as I found, the Marxist labor theory of value arrives at important, data-supported conclusions about the course of capitalist accumulation -- with no need for a tally of capital by a price proxy. Not all conceptual quantities need to be measured; their importance is that they lead to verifiable statements about economic development. Charles Andrews Info about my new book: http://www.hollowcolossus.com _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
