<< I'm no marxist, and I don't know much about productivity,
but those who allege an understatement of productivity
growth by mainstream econs should know that understated
productivity means overstated inflation, and the latter
means smaller CPI adjustments to a number of benefit programs
(and also in negotiated union contracts).
>> Max,
I'm not sure how the inflation numbers actually look like, but Shaikh and Tonak's reconfigured NIPA data suggest only a modest slowdown around 1973. It may be that "unproductive" sectors (FIRE and trade) had relatively higher rates of inflation, while the "productive" sector had lower rates.
Look, the whole point of the exercise is not to diminish political arguments, but basically to have a more critical response to orthodox theory and policies that explicitly REJECT the notion that ALL market-valued activities play an equal role in capitalism:
Bill Gates pays social security taxes, owns a home, drives a VW (hah!) and is just a regular guy! But it is obvious that his social role is much different than the janitor.
Is this basic distinction going to change the world? Well, I suppose at different times and epochs, perhaps it has. The point is people should have an opportunity to look at the question of work and the function of one's "occupation" in a much more critical context than what's currently available - just as Doug's "Wall Street" IS making people rethink just what the hell financial markets are for!
I hope this debate is going turn out to be a lot more interesting than the "Capital Critique." Heterodox economists in the 1960s and early 1970s thought they had found the "magic bullet" to destroy NC economics. Well they did have the bullet, but I suppose they never had a large enough gun!
Jason