----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Consider the standards that some set for judging reswitching to be 
important. 
 
1.  You cannot prove that it has ever happened -- despite Barkley Rosser's 
articles. 
 
2.  Even if it did, so what. 
 
Then the neo-classicals turn around and say that markets work perfectly, 
or almost perfectly.  At least nothing can improve on markets. 
 
What scientific evidence can they produce?  They can offer case studies -- 
the USSR disintegrated, Cuba is poorer than the US .... 
 
But these statements amount to anecdotes without some rigorous tests. 
 
The reswitching literature reminds us that capital cannot be measured.  We 
are dealing with an inexact discipline, not a science, but as Keynes says, 
something like dentistry. 
 
Of course, the inability to measure depreciation alone suffices to show 
that measuring capital is impossible. 
 
The upshot should be that we should not speak and write with absolute 
certainty -- yet that is a tendency common to our discipline -- 
fortunately, less common with people with an interest in history of 
thought. 
 
The California deregulation experiment is a stronger proof/anecdote 
demonstrating that markets don't work well, but then people will say that 
the deregulation was not complete.  Of course, they will not buy that 
argument by someone who says that socialism never had a chance to be 
complete in the USSR. 
 
Michael Perelman 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]