The part that's relatively "simple" (though capable of endless Bedlamite redoing as algebra), the Ricardian long run increasing organic composition of capital falling rate of profit theory, is mistaken. Ironically, it's partly because, in constructing it, Marx, as I've claimed before, has forgotten the implications of the Hegelian ontological foundations of his approach, implications that severely limit (for the reasons elaborated by Whitehead) the applicability of deductive reasoning from fixed axioms (let alone "algebra") to the construction of a theory of the long run...
-clip-
...On this basis Keynes constructs a theory of behaviour in financial markets that will explain the foolishness of the "Nobel" prize winning investment strategy of Long-Term Capital Management as, what amounts to, an elaboration of Shakespeare's insightful treatment of Antonio's similar strategy in the Merchant of Venice. This, I take it, is a "theory" in Chomsky's sense.
Ted
^^^^^^
CB: Hell of an interesting post , as usual , Ted.
The Shakespearean originated theory does seem like it might be one of the long run though ,if it is valid still in 2000 (?)
However, I'm not stuck on the formal logical project of pointing out contradictions as weaknesses in arguments.