Steve Keen wrote: > Not that I'd normally offer to speak for P(aul)D(avidson), but the > essence of the P(ost)K(eynesian) tradition is that there is no theory > of value. They promote what they call a 'horses for courses' approach > that whatever methodology applies for a given question is OK. This > position has been well critiqued (from a neoclassical perspective) by > Roger Backhouse, asking that if any methodology is OK, why do they > object so strongly to neoclassical methods? _______________________ Steve, I think 'horses for courses' could also be interpreted as accepting the Ricardian, and in my estimation Sraffian, position that there is no such thing as a 'general theory'. In that case, it is legitimate to pick up a theory of a particular problem and take it apart on the ground of theoretical incoherence. But I feel that unless a tradition in economic theory has a theory of value, it will be hard for it to erect an impressive structure. Furthermore, I think that a theory of value is essentially about a static problem. There cannot be a dynamic theory of value (if we allow technical change through time) simply because you cannot have an invariable measuring rod in this context. So one needs to think about the nature of a dynamic theory. Cheers, ajit sinha > > > On utility theory and marginalism, these neoclassical concepts are > almost universally rejected by PKs, though for a wide range of > reasons. There is currently a discussion on PKT in which several list > 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT