Vernengo versus Murphy on the Cambridge Capital Controversies

An interesting post here from Matias Vernengo criticising Robert Murphy’s Austrian view of the Cambridge Capital Controversies in the content of discussion of Piketty:

Matias Vernengo, “Robert Murphy, the Austrian theory of the rate of interest and Piketty’s ‘Capital,’” Naked Keynesianism, May 15, 2014.

Lachmann on the Cambridge Capital Controversies

There is a post here on a paper of Lachmann concerning the Cambridge Capital Controversies:

Isaac Marmolejo, “Lachmann’s Quick Comment on The Cambridge Capital Debate,” March 2, 2012.

An interesting observation of Lachmann on the debate:

“Everybody seems to agree today that the stock of capital cannot be measured outside equilibrium, viz. outside entirely artificial conditions. But there are two reasons for it of which we may call one the ‘Ricardian’ or ‘objectivist’, the other the ‘Austrian’ or ‘subjectivist’ reason. We may also say that the one is ‘backward looking’, the other ‘forward looking’. The former rests on the fact that any change in the mode of income distribution, in rate of profit or wage rate, will affect relative prices and thus deprive us of any solid yardstick. It is particularly germane to any view of capital which links the present value of capital resources to their current cost of reproduction, a ‘backward looking’ view.” (Lachmann 1994: 194).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Lachmann, L. M. 1994. “Reflections on Hayekian Capital Theory,” in D. Lavoie (ed.), Expectations and the Meaning of Institutions: Essays in Economics, Routledge, London. 193–206.

Review of the Cambridge Capital Controversies

There is a very interesting review of the Cambridge Capital Controversies at the Naked Keynesianism blog here:

“The Capital Debates: A Brief Introduction,” March 1, 2012

This is a clear, but not oversimplified, summary of the debate and its consequences for neoclassical economics.