> Given Mr. Weatherby's extreme linguistic infelicity, it's difficult
> to decipher his point. I'll address what I think he's trying to
> say.


Gee here we go again just like Al Gore and George Bush. Gore says that
Bush's plan give 43% of the tax cut to the top 1%. Bush replies that the 1%
will have a higher marginal tax rae. Gore replies Bush never addressed the
question. hmmm Like Gore you simply refuse to understand plain english when
it goes against what you are trying to point out.
    Sraffa is dead. Samuelson showed how this was one legged analysis a long
long time ago. I can't beleive that people still read this.
    Furthermore you still confuse classical models of value with the
neo-classical growth model. They are completely different. The similarity
stops where both Solow and Ricardo agree that consumption must be foregone
to get growth. The difference is simple the classic economist would most
likely promote Say's Law while the neo-classical growth model has its basis
in the ISLM model and John Maynard Keynes. Few economist who would follow
RBC or rational expectations want to stake a whole model of growth on the
basis that investment is the MPS time output. Where is what Robert Solow
does. Anyway, the neo-classical growth production function was proven valid
by Samuelson.
    Your reference to economist giving in to Robinson is unfounded it comes
I believe from a posting I made 2 years that shows why the CCC is dead. The
newest endogeneous growth models do not aggregate capital in the
begininning. Rather they are built off of firm profit maximizing behavior.
Therefore production functions for capital goods are often disagregated with
different capital goods accounted for. This is crucial in determining either
quality ladders or creative destruction. Often to find the socially optimal
allocations of R&D it is assumed that there are enough capital goods to
change summations into integrals and return to an aggregate production
function and aggregate capital to solve the model.
    SO you are half right the new growth looks at capital on a disaggregated
level to find firm specific effects. Then they aggregate them to find a
social optimal allocation.
    The result is that the Solow-Swan and Ramsey-Cass-Koopmans models are
mostly dead models. The Ramsey model is still used as a baseline, like
perfect competition, for models involving things like polution but the
ventrue into explaining the determinates of growth have moved into the
Neo-Schumpterian field. Therefore incessant screaming about Solow and Lucas
is invalid. These models are falling to the wayside. We might as well debate
if Sir John Stewart's textbook still has merit. Catch up with the reading.
Try Paul Romer, Aghion and Howitt, or Grossman and Helpman for a good start.
Yet I know I am wasting my breath reading these models would make you
realize that you have no gripes then you would lose your favorite hobby of
posting the same articles then trying to slickly confuse neo-classical
growth models with the classical theory of distribution to try promote your
anit-capitalist neo-Marxism thinly vieled under the statement Keynes was
misinterpreted.

John


> John Roemer has shown how to derive Sraffa's systems in a manner
> consistent with methodological individualism. But one can accept
> Sraffa's approach as a kind of structuralism, independent of this
> behavioral derivation. The question of structuralism versus
> methodological individualism is not the same as a question of
> aggregation of production functions or of aggregate 'capital'.
> 
> Some don't think a surplus-based classical revival will develop a
> set of equations that apply to all societies. Rather these equations
> will vary with the institutional setup. Edward Nell's research in
> what he calls the theory of transformation growth is a good
> example. In other words, the theory is consistent with an approach
> that accepts the existence of social structures above the level
> of the individual not derived as the aggregation of individual
> monads.
> 
> Furthermore, the givens in Garegnani's classical core, unlike the
> givens of the neoclassical theory of value and distribution, are seen
> by the developers as needing to be explained within the discipline
> of economics. These connections between, e.g., accumulation and changes
> in the level of natural wages and in the dominant techniques,
> might be explained in a manner inconsistent with methodological
> individualism. Individuals are treated as if they are socialized
> prior to the theorist's explanations. For example, their needs
> reflect social conventions.
> 
>> [ Silliness and distractions about Keynes deleted. ]