the problem, as I see it, is that S &T's rate of profit isn't the one that affects capitalist behavior (i.e., what Fred Moseley calls the "conventional rate of profit"). Also, the only unproductive expenditure that plays a role in determining the rate of profit in their framework (if I remember it correctly) is that paid for by private business, not that part paid for by the tax payer. Taxes lower the after-tax (conventional) rate of profit, all else constant. But such taxes on business have been playing a smaller and smaller role in recent decades.
WS makes a big thing about the need to make predictions. S & T's accounting framework doesn't make predictions. But then again, _no_ accounting framework makes predictions, including the one that WS uses so approvingly (the system of national accounts> If we were to throw out accounting systems because they failed to pass the Popperian test (as WS would have it) then it would be even harder to develop theories that do make predictions. In fact, without double-entry bookkeeping -- which makes absolutely no predictions, by the way -- business would have a hard time doing anything. Some scholars even credit (or is it debit? ;-)) double-entry bookkeeping with allowing the development of capitalism in Europe, at least making big contribution.
The Popperian biz about predictions is silly anyway. No social science can survive the Popper test. Maybe that's one reason why the philosophy of science people rejected it years ago.
It's a good thing to make predictions, but I don't think it's necessary to social science. There are also other ways to criticize social science (e.g., internal logical consistency and methological wholeness). -- Jim Devine "The price one pays for pursuing any profession or calling is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side." -- James Baldwin
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm