>so what is your alternative to handle data then????
>You are the one who prefer burgeois categories as opposed to marxist
>categories derived from them, as you have made clear a while ago on
>the exchange on productive labor. This means that you believe
>everything is fine with the Keynesian categories and the theoretical
>framework behind the measurement of GDP.
>I don't understand why you now turn around and accuse Marxist
>economists of 'toying' around with these categories when you are
>doing the same or worse because you are not even challenging these
Gosh, don't be so sensitive. Toying means reworking. I said that Marxists don't agree with the categories of bourgeois national income accounting but they don't view the whole enterprise of social accounting as a representation of capitalism to be fraudulent crap. Shaikh & Tonak's accounting is no more effective at representing the status of poor people in the U.S. than is what the BEA does. But they think it's important to understanding the dynamics of capitalism as a system, as do bourgeois national income accountants.