Andrew:
>By this criterion, not only the Okishio theorem, but the proof of the
>existence of general equilibrium, Arrow's impossibility theorem, and indeed
>any conclusions (which other people would consider as economic) that are
>arrived at by deductive reasoning from premises are either vacuous or part of
>a specialized branch of mathematics.
WPC:
I would suspect that you are right that some bourgeois 'economics' has
become a sterile mathematical exercise quite detached from the real world.
Its scientific status under these circumstances is quite questionable.
>
>Now that I understand Paul's terms, I can answer his question about why I
>(anyone?) should be concerned with the Okishio theorem if it is a mathematical
>proposition: because I'm working in the same specialized branch of
>mathematics.
Paul Cockshott
wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk
http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/CS/Biog/wpc/index.html