From: Dave Zachariah <davez@kth.se>

Date: Wed Jun 16 2010 - 15:29:28 EDT

Date: Wed Jun 16 2010 - 15:29:28 EDT

I was recently prompted by Andrew Kliman about subjecting the labour

theory of value to statistical tests. Kliman objects to measuring the

correlation between industry sector outputs in terms of price P and

labour-value V. Instead he suggest one must 'deflate' the outputs in

some way.

He seems to miss the fundamental point that given the constraints on the

available data the specific test is precisely trying to quantify *how

well* size in terms of price correlates with size in terms of

labour-value. If they correlate weakly the labour theory of value would

be a relatively weak theory of market exchange. Hence, deflating the

output price and output labour-value with a third output size variable

would make little sense for this test.

Nevertheless Kliman insists that one must deflate price P and

labour-value V with output costs C. In his paper in Cambridge Journal of

Economics from 2005, he reports that when doing this the strong

correlations between P and V reported in the literature is destroyed,

indicating that they are all spurious. He shows this by means of a

computer simulation but motivates this by a 'deductive proof'.

"For some reason, C[ockshott] &C[ottrell] simply ignore this proof.

I am at a loss to explain why they fail to discuss (or even mention)

it and why they seem not to recognize its validity. The proof is

straightforward and mathematically trivial." (p.318)

His reasoning is as follows: If

ln P_i = ln V_i + e_i

holds then it also holds that

ln P_i - ln C_i = ln V_i - ln C_i + e_i

and hence correlations would be preserved. But since he finds that the

latter does not hold he concludes must be that the first relationship

does not hold in reality and "[a]s long as it remains unrefuted---and I

do not see how it could possibly be refuted---my regression results stand."

Well, it seems like the reviewers failed to notify him that P, V and C

are *statistical* quantities. Effectively he is saying that if rho(P,V)

is high then rho(P/C,V/C) is necessarily high or else the correlation

between P and V is spurious. But is should be clear that if C is

correlated with P and V this does not hold. And this is precisely the

case if one lets C be output costs.

This is the basis of what the author has labeled "the uncontested proof".

//Dave Z

_______________________________________________

ope mailing list

ope@lists.csuchico.edu

https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

Received on Wed Jun 16 16:31:14 2010

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Wed Jun 30 2010 - 00:00:03 EDT
*