calling in loans

[Michael Perelman]

The importance of reswitching is that it shows that the marginal
productivity of capital is invalid as a macroeconomic concept.  As a
result, neoclassical economics has no theory of profit.

Doug Henwood wrote:


> Bradford DeLong wrote:
>
> >I'm still mulling over whether "reswitching" and associated
> >Cambridge stuff that is barely less deadly than the transformation
> >problem is an important critique of Solow, or the equivalent of
> >Giffen goods. I mean, you need a *really* weird cash flow profile
> >for "reswitching" to become relevant, don't you?
>
> I once tried earnestly to comprehend the reswitching debate, but it
> seemed obscure and scholastic (in the bad sense) - pretty much the
> same reaction I have to the transformation problem. Am I missing
> something?
>
> Doug

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901