From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Sun Dec 03 2006 - 06:12:45 EST
Ajit I will reply to the other points later, just a quick one on this. ------------------- > Paul > > I dont think one can be so dismissive of the > empirical. > You have to explain why the labour theory of value, > if > wrong, gives the correct predictions. Why else is > the > rate of profit lower in sectors with a high organic > composition? _______________________ Statistics cannot give you more than corelation and corelation can be accidental. But I do not need to explain these corelation (and to what extent the data is reliable to be accepted as correct observation) because I don't work in this area. But just for curiosity, have you tried the same exercise with oil or some other basic input used in lare proportion? ---------------- We addressed this in a 1997 paper Labour time versus alternative value bases: a research note Cockshott,W.P. Cottrell,A. Appeared in: Cambridge Journal of Economics (Volume 21) Publication Type: Journal Page Numbers : 545-549 Publisher: N/A Year: 1997 ISBN/ISSN: 0309-166X Our study showed that for other inputs chosen from the I/O Table the correlation between for example oil price and market price was much much lower than for labour. This has subsequently been confirmed for about 20 other economies by the work of Maniatis and Zacharaiah. ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 00:00:04 EST