>In response to my remarks on the intended import of the Okishio theorem, Paul
>C wrote in ope-l 3221: "It is then not a potential theory of scientific
>political economy, but a proposition of mathematics, so why be concerned with
>it[?]"
>
>What I wrote indicated that the theorem makes claims concerning *causation*,
>the causes of change in the profit rate, under certain assumptions
>(Okishio-viable technical change, uniform profitability). I don't see how one
>can conclude from this, as Paul does, that the theorem is "a proposition of
>mathematics."
WPC:
Just that if the theorem is a theory about economies, and that it is non-vacuous
it must make some testable predictions. If it does not, then it must be a
theorem
of a some specialised branch of mathematics.
Paul Cockshott
wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk
http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/CS/Biog/wpc/index.html