----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Yes Mark, 
 
But there is also the question of whether an empirical retort is suitable  
for a logical critique. 
 
In some circumstances, it is: for example, the 'Friedmanian retort' (which  
itself is probably not true, of course) that Galileo ignored air resistance  
when developing a theory of the effect of gravity, which of course Friedman  
'answers' by saying that air resistance is negligible in the circumstances  
of his experiment. 
 
I don't believe the same can be said of this topic, since it goes to the  
logical foundations of the analysis--and especially the theory of income  
distribution. 
 
If it can, then there's another equally devastating logical critique which  
could then also be said to legitimately dismiss a logical critique on the  
ground of empirical evidence: the labor theory of value. 
 
There are at least some modern-day proponents of that theory (Paul  
Cockshott, Allin Cottrell and perhaps a few others) who argue that the  
logical critiques of the LTV are irrelevant, since on their statisticalr  
research, embodied labor values are better predictors of relative prices  
that Sraffian or other input-output derived imputed prices. 
 
So if some economists are willing to excuse the reswitching controversy  
(and the other aspects of Sraffa's 1960 critique, including the income  
distribution and capital measurement challenges) on the basis of empirical  
irrelevance, are they also willing to accept that the labor theory of value  
could be valid, on the basis of the empirical irrelevance of the  
transformation problem? 
 
Cheers, 
Steve Keen 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]