>>> The classical economists _failed_ to create a useful explanation of
>>> value, whereas the neoclassical economists did not.

> This is exactly backwards. Consider a model in which there is one
> non-produced input, homogeneous labor. Suppose production takes time,
> ad all goods are produced by processes that require inputs of labor
> and produced inputs. (This is a model of production of commodities by
> means of commodities.)


[ Outline of Sraffian/Marxist PCMC deleted. ]

Mr. Vienneau neglects to mention that constant returns to scale
and no substitution of inputs have been smuggled surreptiously into
the model he discussed.  This model is influential amongst radical and
post-Keynesian economists eager to preserve a labour theory of value    
(he is wrong to claim that such theorists have ``little use'' for the
LTV, while Sraffa's theory is different from Marx's, equilibrium value
*is* simply dated labour in Sraffa's account), but largely ignored by the
majority of the economic community.

> (For more about the collapse of Neoclassical theory, see
> "Sraffa, Piero" and related entries in _The_New_Palgrave_.)


The ``collapse of Neoclassical theory''  !?!

Mr. Vienneau is surely pulling our collective leg here.  Whether he
likes it or not, neoclassical economics is the dominant paradigm in
modern economics, has been for a long time, and shows no sign of
losing ground to any competing theories.  In particular, the Sraffian
attack he claims ``collapses'' the neoclassical system dates to 1926,
and, as I've mentioned, has few adherents.  I'm afraid if this is
his support for his contention that classical theories of value are
``of increasing importance to modern economists,'' he ought to think
again.