> Oh no! The Neo-Ricardians ride again. Look we can go back and fourth on
> this old saw all day and night. Here is Freeman's response to Gary
> www.gre.ac.uk/~fa03/iwgvt/ files/01-eea-freeman-gravity.doc
>
> But what both Marxists and Ricardians would agree on is that a) a
> subjectivist theory of value won't cut it and b) that a abstinence theory of
> interest and profit is humbug at best, and in Delong's farmer theory of
> profit pure unadulterated apologia for it neither approximates a real
> economic system (feudalism or capitalism etc) nor a plausible history of the
> origins of capitalist development. Not to mention it is a shitty pedagogy.
> Let the undergrad go wrestle with a 150 year old problem and debate. The
> worst that can happen is that he or she will figure out that there is more
> to this earthly economy than can be explained by a well specified set axioms
> regardless of who is providing them. The best that can happen is that the
> student will appreciate the complexity of the problem and the political
> stakes involved in its "resolution."
>
> Travis
-------------------------
The mere fact that there is no resolution after 125+ years shows there something wrong with trying to infer or deduce [take your pick, I don't care] a normative wrong from a bunch of algebra and calculus no matter how intricate the algorithms.