[OPE-L:3452] Re: Say No More

Steve Keen (s.keen@uws.edu.au)
Wed, 16 Oct 1996 13:27:25 -0700 (PDT)

[ show plain text ]

OK Alan,

Send me a copy via ze email, and in a while, I'll take a look (sorry,
but the ridiculous workload of a first year at a new Uni is not yet
over!). To telegraph what punches I might be able to land, what I expect
to find is that--while the system works as a nonequilibrium one given
any K/L ratios, rate of tech. change, etc.--its equilibrium is
congenitally unstable if K/L ratios differ. By which I mean that what
should be an equilibrium according to the LTV is not one in practice,
unless K/L ratios are identical across industries.

But I could be wrong!

Another way to get it to me is via ftp at csf.colorado.edu. They have a
pub/incoming subdirectory where you could place it under an obvious name
for me to collect.


Alan Freeman wrote:
> Steve writes (3283)
> "I doubt that the TSS interpretation will help the LTV survive the
> same criticisms it has suffered in a simultaneist guise *when we move to
> 2 or more sectors with differing capital to labor ratios and/or
> differing rates of technical change*. This is why I would like to see
> the TSS (after you've presented it in 1-sector guise) presented in
> multi-sectoral form."
> "Working this out will involve a bit of math, which at present I haven't
> the time for (other bits of math are taking priority). But this is a
> challenge that I think the TSS school should subject itself to."
> In Chapter 11 of 'Marx and non-equilibrium economics' I gave a
> a rigorous proof for the multi-sector case, of the major controversial
> or disputed aspects of Marx's value theory, with any capital-labour
> ratios you want, any profit rates you want and any rates of tech change
> you want. (And any level of V you want in any industry you want). There
> may be a flaw in it but no-one's pointed it out to me.
> Mind you I suspect this is because no-one has actually read it.
> Hint, Hint, Wink, Wink.
> I'm happy to E-Mail this to anyone who wants. The maths isn't hard,
> just novel.
> Alan