It's not your claim, you just endorse G&P's claim, but it's not your claim? I apologize for not recognizing the subtlety of your position. I'm not distorting anything. You reproduce the claim, it's your claim in your post. You cite G&P to make an argument against the LTFROP.
Last time I checked G&P haven't posted here.
No, I'm not saying there is NO worthwhile data about the whole period. I am saying that calculating a rate of profit for a period that includes a significant portion of time when the data are spotty is a speculative exercise at best, and is probably best ignored.
And I can certainly see why you don't bother engaging with that, just as I can see why you keep claiming Kliman commits errors in his refutation of Okishio's theorem but never both to engage with your own claim. Or is it not "your" claim, but the claim of your radical economist friend?
as usual you mistate what I said. I said that G & P made a claim about the period 1830 to World War 2. Are you saying there are no worthwhile data about that whole period?
You see, you continue to mistate things. You see why I don't bother engaging with you?
you're a fucking fundamentalist.