I for one would argue that the difference does not come down to comparative statics; I am no fan of that methodology, but I also expect to find that TSS would fail to be truly internally consistent in a proper dynamic model. Steve At 03:14 PM 3/8/01 -0800, you wrote: >Does the argument between TSS and its opponents come down to the question >of the methodology of comparative statics? Allin, Ajit and others have >defended its use, and argued that Marx himself employed this method. But >this strikes me as untrue even though I have attempted a static solution >to the transformation problem which I claim maintains both equalities >though Allin thinks I do so by definitional trick. > >At any rate, comparative statics suffers from at least the following well >known defects: > >1. it exogenizes technology and other sources of change. >2. it neglects transitional processes. >3. it eshews a real causal theory of the developmental consequences of >capital accumulation; in short it seems ill suited as a method to lay bare >the laws of motion. > >All the best, Rakesh Dr. Steve Keen Senior Lecturer Economics & Finance Campbelltown, Building 11 Room 30, School of Economics and Finance UNIVERSITY WESTERN SYDNEY LOCKED BAG 1797 PENRITH SOUTH DC NSW 1797 Australia s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683 Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088 Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:28 EDT