@FoolontheHill
UE: Given that the only coherent way to think of produce is as a result of all of the factors of production combined, what determines each factor of production’s share of the produce? Each wants as much as possible, but each requires the others in order to gain any produce at all. So the share for one factor of production is determined by its relative ability to replace the other factors of production. Or, to put it another way, the produce is distributed by bargaining power.
Bingo. I started developing such a perspective in this thread.
I am not sure UE’s approach makes sense to me as written (which was one reason I was more focusing on his critique of the neoclassical approach as opposed to his own).
I mean, here he says that the share of one factor of production is determined by its relative ability to replace the other factors of production. However, earlier in the post, it sounded like he was using examples where there is no ability to replace one factor for another. Look at his taxi cab example. There is simply no opportunity to replace taxi cabs with people (I can keep buying cars, but unless they drive themselves, I wont be able to expand the quantity of taxi services i produce).
If he ACTUALLY believes that elasticity of substitution between factors is not zero, then his first criticism falls apart. In that situation, you have a production process where marginal productivities are calcuable.