>>>   Avi J. Cohen and G.C. Harcourt "Retrospectives: Whatever happened
>>>   to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversy", The Journal of Economic
>>>  Perspectives Volume 17 No. 1 Winter 2003. 


>> We use general equilibrium models. Read Cohen 
>> and Harcourt it clearly states that these models give similar results 
>> and that is why the general equilibrium round was said to have solved 
>> the controversy.

> Cohen and Harcourt are referring to Bliss', Burmeister's, Hahn's, and
> Samuelson's uses of the Arrow-Debreu model of intertemporal equilibrium
> and the Hicks' model of sequences of temporary equilibrium.


>> You still do not understand the difference between short and long run 
>> and how that changes the analysis of the effect of an increased wage on 
>> employment.

> Mr. Weatherby does not know what he is talking about. He has consistently
> and wrongly argued that these General Equilibrium models are long run
> models.
>  
> In these models, the endowment of capital goods at the start of time in
> the model is data of the model. This endowment includes quantities of
> long-lasting fixed capital goods (for example, "machinery", "plant")
> and of easily changed quantities of circulating capital goods (for
> example, intermediate goods like screws and nails used up in the
> next stage of production). These models are very-short run models.


You still do not understand what long run means. The capital endowments 
can be traded. This means any agent can change capital at will. THIS IS 
A LONG RUN ASSUMPTION. The capital endowment can be traded so it is long 
run. In the short run you no one agent can change capital. Just because 
no new capital is produced does not mean it is short run. Agents can 
change capital levels through trade and therefore it is LONG RUN.

> Mr. Weatherby simply doesn't know what he is talking about. His
> comments are not responsive to, for example, the discussion Mandler
> and Schefold have been having over the last few years on the implications
> of the Cambridge Capital Controversy for very short run General
> Equilibrium models.
>  
> Furthermore, Mr. Weatherby's preferred short run analysis uses a
> Cobb-Douglas production function, with inputs of labor and "capital",
> whatever that means. He equates the marginal product of labor to wages,
> and considers different levels of wages. When he does this, he is
> allowing the process to change, in contradistinction to his above
> mistaken statement. I believe I have pointed out his error before.


It is not a contradiction. Process may change BUT CAPITAL IS FIXED. Your 
processes imply different levels of capital meaning CAPITAL IS NOT 
FIXED. If capital is not fixed then the model is LONG RUN. Either you 
are very dense or you have too much pride to admit you are wrong.

> Which reminds me. Why doesn't Mr. Weatherby explain what he means
> by "capital switching"?


Changes in the level of CAPITAL WHICH MEANS IT IS A LONG RUN MODEL.

If capital changes under mainstream analysis the effect on employment is 
uncertain. It is simple do some math and you can figure this out. Read a 
labor economics hand book and you figure this out.