From: Ian Wright (ian_paul_wright@HOTMAIL.COM)
Date: Mon Jun 16 2003 - 18:02:37 EDT
Hello Paul, >The conclusion I draw from this is that although stochastic >and statistical models have to be the way to go, one must >be very cautious about imposing conservation principles >on them if they are to be: >a) internally consistent >b) plausible as models I am listening, and note your word of caution. I agree that institutions do regularly violate the conservation of money. But assuming, say, a fixed population size and a fixed amount of money, and abstracting from state control of the money supply and fractional reserve banking, is another way to slice the cake, just like, for example, the Sraffian model abstracts from money and assumes a fixed number of commodity types, or the classical assumption that prices correspond to values, or the "law of one price" and so on. Holding some things constant simplifies the analysis, as I'm sure you're well aware. You mentioned possible links between quantum mechanics and models that do not assume conservation of money. That was a good thought because the following paper embodies that idea: http://xxx.arxiv.cornell.edu/abs/physics/0211029 It may interest you because it explicitly considers double-entry bookkeeping, and allows monetary transfers to lead to "particle creation or annihilation" via an analogy the author calls "bookkeeping mechanics". -Ian. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 18 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT