From: Jurriaan Bendien (adsl675281@TISCALI.NL)
Date: Wed Jun 20 2007 - 11:28:00 EDT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Perelman" <michael@ecst.csuchico.edu> To: "Jurriaan Bendien" <adsl675281@tiscali.nl> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 3:11 AM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Prof. Perelman and the quantification problem > > thanks. i was joking about the prof. insult. > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 09:02:07PM +0200, Jurriaan Bendien wrote: >> Michael, >> >> That is most gratifying, but I did not mean to insult you, or really >> intend >> something pejorative. I think generally "Prof." is more an honorific >> title, >> used with respect. I've referred to "Dr" Kliman sometimes where I think >> he >> substitutes argument from authority for fair argument, in a wiki context, >> but that is another story. Being a Professor is a perfectly honorable >> occupation, I mean I'd like to be one often, except I don't have a string >> of >> publications in refereed journals etc. which you need. I guess the >> downside >> of the occupation is, that you still have to spend quite a bit of time on >> administration, rather than on research. >> >> I think you're correct, it is almost impossible to measure abstract >> labour >> and to find a valid MELT is difficult, although you can theorise about >> it. I >> say that because at various times I have tried to calculate labour >> quantities empiricaly, and tried to identify all the measurement problems >> (among other things, paid labour hours do not necessarily inform us about >> actual work done). But you can develop some indicators, which raise >> interesting questions. Why does South Korea work significantly more >> hours, >> for a proportionally lower GDP than Holland, for instance? Although to my >> knowledge nil research has been done in this area, it would be possible >> to >> demonstrate very large disparities internationally, between actual work >> done, the output value of that work, and the incomes gained from it. We >> have >> available fairly good dollar-value data on GDP measurements, but we know >> very little about the workers who PRODUCED that GDP. The ILO still >> doesn't >> have an internationally comparable and complete data set for labour force >> variables. Quite spectacular, if you think about it. >> >> It's just that you suggested once that Marx's theory is more a >> qualitative >> theory than a quantitative one. That doesn't seem quite correect to me, >> some >> aspects you can measure - directly or indirectly - while some aspects you >> cannot. In reality, a lot of cutting-edge economics these days is just >> intelligent guesswork, i.e. working out the probabilistic relationships >> between variables empirically thought to be influencing an outcome in >> important ways. We could call it the "mathematization of Capital". >> >> As I suggested before, one of the purposes of measurement, apart from >> testing a theory, is to get very exact about what we operationally mean >> by >> our concepts. So even if it turns out we cannot measure something, at >> least >> we have the knowledge of what it operationally means. >> >> The trouble with many Marxist MELT theories to my way of thinking is that >> they take the concepts of inputs and outputs for granted, whereas in >> reality >> a lot also depends on how you define inputs and outputs within an >> accounting >> system of transactors, and what system of grossing and netting you use. >> The >> Gross Output concept itself relies on a definition of the boundaries of >> production, and Net Output relies on a definition of the boundaries of >> intermediate consumption. Marx never really talked much about "inputs and >> outputs", he was talking about a sum of capital being converted into a >> larger sum of capital. Sure, an input or output is a sum of capital, but >> any >> accountant can tell you, that a stock of capital assets is not >> necessarily >> the same as a stock (or flow value) of inputs and outputs. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Jurriaan >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Michael Perelman" <michael@ecst.csuchico.edu> >> To: "Jurriaan Bendien" <adsl675281@TISCALI.NL> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 3:01 AM >> Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Prof. Perelman and the quantification problem >> >> >> >I don't see anything here that I cannot accept, except the pejorative, >> >Prof. > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu > michaelperelman.wordpress.com > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/853 - Release Date: 6/18/2007 > 15:02 >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 30 2007 - 00:00:04 EDT