Some comments on the theories of Steve Keen 

Steve Keen: "Having failed to understand the mechanism of money creation in a credit money world, and failed to understand how that mechanism goes into reverse during a financial crisis, neoclassical economics may end up doing what by accident what Marx failed to achieve by deliberate action, and bring capitalism to its knees."
--- The main reason why this happens, is power over the money machine, and the asymmetrical distribution economy. These mechanisms are self reinforcing.
Current capitalism will fail, capitalism in it's current model, but it will fail by Schumpeter, not by Marx.

Steve Keen: "Notably the “labor theory of value”, which argues erroneously that all profit comes from labor, the notion that the rate of profit has a tendency to fall, and the alleged inevitability of the demise of capitalism".
---Since not all profit comes from labor, then are there synergy effects that causes more profits from other sources. The main issue, and the deciding factor when it comes to the LTV by marx, is that he quantified it on a binary level. When marx said that everything except 50-50 is explotation and deviation from this is destined to fail, then he himself dig his own grave, that he constructed by arbitrary and binary slippery-slope thinking fallacy. But still, the profit rate will fall regardless of a labor theory of value or no labor theory of value, or even no value theory at all.

Because we will never be able to avoid the thermodynamical theory (not a value theory). It says that whatever is of value, it cannot be decoupled from the laws of thermodynamics.


 Steve Keen: "At this point, Marx is triumphant. He has established the source of surplus value, and has done so without any initial presumption that labour was the only source of value, an achievement which had eluded his classical antecedents. But at this stage, all he had established was that labour was a source of value. To prove that it is the only source of value, he had to apply the same conceptual framework to the means of production, and find that the presumption of the strict labour theory of value, that the means of production only transfer their value to the product, is confirmed. In this second endeavor, he failed".
-- In this statement, I agree with Steve Keen.

Steve Keen: "therefore there is no a priori reason why issues pertaining exclusively to production itself - such as the ratio of capital to labor - should cause a divergence between rates of surplus value and rates of profit. there is thus no reason why a higher capital/labour ratio than average should be associated with a lower rate of surplus value than average, no technical problem in converting values into prices of production, and no reason why prices should systematically diverge from values (or rates of surplus value from rates of profit) solely on the basis of differences in capital intensity".

---For the first sentence, this is mostly psychology that is the reason why there is divergence between surplus value and rates of profit. and a high rate of arbitrage does not necessarily lead to a lower rate of surplus value ratio. On converting values into prices of production; agree, except this has an
expiry date when interpreting "values" as resources, leading to the tendency of the profit rate to fall as resources are effectively extracted.

Steve Keen: "the tendency of the profit rate to fall suffers a similar fate. this "tendency", like the transformation problem itself, was founded on the proposition that labor was the only source of value, and that there was a tendency over time for the ratio of capital to labor (measured in value terms) to rise. Since surplus can be garnered from all inputs to production, there is no reason why an increase in the ratio of commodity to labor inputs should lead to a decline in the overall rate of surplus".
---Except that this trend can not go on for very long, it has to stop, because the ratio of commodity to labour inputs cannot reach a percentage share in which commodity is 100% and labour is 0%. Then there is no human economy, not even a Robinson Crusoe economy.
The tendency of the profit rate to fall globally is a certain fact within the laws of thermodynamics + human psychology. Lest we try to decouple from the physical world by attempts at "decoupling" or "detachment" that was tried during the Weimar republic and Zimbabwe some years ago.

The tendency of the profit rate to fall will be "re-discovered" before or during the downward slope of the global Hubbert peak oil scenario which perhaps will start sometime around the year 2030. I can promise you that the rate of profit will fall many places quite often. But most of all it will fall when we reach the global thermodynamic limits around hundred years from now.

Steve Keen: "since Marx 's theory of value in fact provides the philosophical foundation for an absolute theory of value, consonant with Sfraffian analysis, in which commodities in general in a system of commodity production are regarded as the source of surplus value. Further development of the method discussed in this paper provide many worthwile additions to the intellectual weaponry of Marxian analysis. In this new tradition, which can exist cooperatively with Sraffian and Kaleckian economics while containing the superior concepts of dialectics and value, it should be to Marx's credit that he provided the analysis by which the labour theory of value could be transcended, and labour and commodities together regarded as the joint  sources of value".
---
I agree with the last sentence, humans create more labor and more value by using technology and by doing business transactions that involves commodities, that is according to thermodynamic economics.

I totally disagree with dialectics, since it is not a half decent way of doing science with. Empirical data, empirical observations, conventional epistemology and conventional philosophy of science is what I adhere to. It is the same method as in natural science.
For me it is obvious that there is a reflexivity between prices, labor, energy and commodities, and these connections can never break entirely, there can only be grades of plasticity/elasticity.

Labor has inherent genuine value, a value that can not be decoupled from economics, and if so, then that economy/economics is itself decoupled from the laws of thermodynamics. 

Steve Keen do not address the power issue. One cannot have a thoroughly assessment
of macro economic causes and correlations, or a serious attempt at social science unless the power questions are examined. and this goes far beyond the simple notion of the grand qualitative assertions of the asymmetric power distribution, as a generalized percentage equation. but this last point, can be a good place to start.

Steve Keen's emphasis on (Marx's) LTV instead of asymmetric power relations, and the lack of semi meritocratic feedback mechanisms when he gives a lot of blame on the LTV for the comparative disadvantage of the former soviet autocracy. He is certainly correct in a isolated point of view, but when we look at the causes and the effects of the failed experiment, it is obvious by conventional  historical and epistemological standard, that it was the autocratic central planning part that caused more than 80% of the aggregate problems that ended in the demise of the soviet empire. 

And finally, the steady state model (macro economics) by Steve keen. If it does not address the power issues, it is no good for a debate on any economy, regardless if the economies are exponentially growing or in a stable state.