The problem I see with "empirical evidence" is that the theory is loaded with counter-tendencies. These counter-tendencies are not trivial. They represent movement. Capital encounters its limits -- barriers to realization -- and it develops new forms to overcome those barriers: new products, new processes, world markets, expanded population. So the counter-tendencies are the dynamic aspect of capitalism and the declining rate of profit is the contradiction. One can "control" for things one identified as counter tendencies but that raises the question of whether the "empirical evidence" is an artifact of the assumptions you have built into the model. Neoclassicals are filthy with building assumptions into their models and then finding "evidence" of what they were looking for in the results of their equations;.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#35149): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/35149 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/111057829/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
