From: Andrew Brown (Andrew@lubs.leeds.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Dec 02 2002 - 15:17:05 EST
Hi, (1) I would be very interested to know your theoretical explanation for the correlations that you obtain. (2) Have there been significant criticisms of your own, and other people's, results? Am I right in thiniking Andrew Kliman has offered some criticisms? Thanks Andy Date sent: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:31:00 +0000 From: clyder@gn.apc.org To: artefact@webcom.com, Michael Eldred <artefact@t-online.de> Copies to: "OPE, List" <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Subject: [OPE-L:8089] Re: Re: Heisenberg, Marx and the uncertainty principle Send reply to: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu > Quoting Michael Eldred <artefact@t-online.de>: > > > I would seriously dispute this. There is now a growing body > > > of empirical literature which indicates a very close > > > correspondance between actual sectoral prices in economies and the > > > correponding labour values. The correlations revealed are > > > remarkably strong by economic standards. > > > > Interesting caveat: "by economic standards", also echoed by Paul > > Cockshott's qualification: "as economic theories go". How do they > > go? > > Clyder and Paul Cockshott are the same person using different email > accounts. > > The correlations that I have obtained, give R^2 values of over > 0.95 between sectoral labour values and sectoral prices. Shaik and > Ochoa get similar results. > > The results seem robust between countries, to my knowledge there > is published data on the UK, USA, Italy, Jugoslavia an Mexico which > give comparable results. Steedman has published results for Ireland > and one of the Australian lander which give lower correlations but > this is not unexpected given the greater influence of shot noise in > smaller samples and also the influence of rent in these economies. > > > > > > > > > I would contend that economists rejection of the labour theory of > > > value draws more from bourgeois class interest - horrified at the > > > moral consequences of accepting it - than any scientific > > > objectivity. > > > > > > > If established, such a quantitative law would have > > > > indeed > > > > provided the foundation for a ?theory of motion? of capitalist > > > > economy > > and > > > > allowed reliable, predictive mathematical calculation of its > > > > movements. > > > > > > > > > > It has been established so the rest of your argument falls. > > > > You find what you look for -- just as Galileo did when he rolled > > balls on inclined planes. That's the way science in the modern age > > works: it sets up its experiments to interrogate what is then given > > to the set-up by way of data. It is successful precisely because it > > does not question its preconceptions. > > > > I think this is unfair on the empirical researchers. Until Shaik did > his investigations I don't think anyone expected to get such a close > fit between values and prices. His results certainly did not fit in > with anyones initial preconceptions. They are so counter to the > preconceptions of economists that their implications are only > gradually being realised. It took considerable courage on his part to > question the preconceptions that abounded about the labour theory of > value being empirically invalid and ask : lets see if it really is > invalid? > > It is my experience of doing empirical investigations that they almost > always teach you something new that would not have occured to you had > you not gone to the trouble of doing them. > > > The phenomenon and experience of exchange -- and thus also its > > concept -- is richer than you think. > > > > I am sure that this is true, but unless you investigate actual price > data you are left speculating about the properties of prices. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 03 2002 - 00:00:00 EST