The physiocrats were also correct in their belief that land can provide value, in its role in capturing the sun's rays. Where Smith, Marx, Ricardo, Sraffa etc were correct was in their belief that value is an inherent quantity, embodied in the goods and services in the economy. However, as was found a

ply balances to equal the above demand, where supply costs of commodities are calculated by aggregating costs of inputs on a cost plus basis, as per Sraffa, (un-reconstituted) von Neumann, market-microstructure and post-Keynesian analyses, but done on a dynamic equilibrium basis. At this level, price

clear that the models were modelling the economics of the classical economists; the economics of Smith, Ricardo, Marx, von Neumann (unmodified) and Sraffa. With hindsight this turned out to be a consequence of the second of the two original models I had proposed in 2006. In this model wealth is implic

n economics had been systematically disproved by neoclassical economics. More reading of economics quickly proved the second assumption to be false, Sraffa was the victor of the Cambridge capital controversies. The labour theory of value is indeed nonsense. However the concept of absolute value is not

ted as a prior claim on pay, just as with the firm. ] may have been the only person to think so since Quesnay and the physiocrats, although Mill and Sraffa might be interpreted that way. But who has thought what doesn’t matter. Quesnay’s idea is a mathematical possibility that must be addressed. I’ll ge