From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 09:46:57 EDT
Ajit, Do I have to measure time by a clock? Can I measure it by distance travelled, or dinner being ready, or by the quantity of a thing, say sand passed through an hourglass? Can I tick away seconds in grains of gold? When we use a stop watch to measure an hour, or eight of them, aren't we just using a mechanical result to refer to a duration? Howard ----- Original Message ----- From: "ajit sinha" <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 9:00 AM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) Ajit's paper > --- Ian Wright <iwright@GMAIL.COM> wrote: > > Hi Ajit > > > > > But these prices are determined by the > > determinants other > > > than prices. That's why it qualifies to be a > > theory of prices. If > > > they determined prices of a commodity in time t on > > the basis > > > of observed prices of the same commodity in time > > t-1, then it > > > would not be a theory of prices but rather be > > simple > > > mumbo-jumbo, which is what TSS is. > > > > Whatever the precise merits of TSS models your > > methodological > > stipulation that a theory of prices must explain > > prices only by > > reference to phenomena other than prices is > > unjustifiable. > > > > I can only imagine that such a stipulation derives > > from a static > > conception of reality, in which prices are conceived > > merely as > > economic outputs, rather than being both economic > > outputs and inputs, > > which have causal consequences. > > > > In any system that supports feedback mechanisms an > > output signal at > > time t can be an input to the mechanism at time t+1. > > This behaviour is > > reguarly expressed in terms of differential or > > difference equations. > > > > Control engineering is not formulated in terms of > > simultaneous > > equations. If your methdological stipulation was > > applied to other > > domains then the theory of control engineering would > > also be > > "mumbo-jumbo". Again, it is a kind of ascetism to > > maintain that prices > > cannot have causal consequences, but are simply > > output epiphenomena > > that have only a nominal rather than causal role. > > > > -Ian. > __________________ > Ian, I think what I'm saying holds even for a causal > theory. A theory of price or for that matter a theory > of anything, say X, is supposed to explain the > phenomenon of X. To say that the value of X in time t > is determined by the given value of X in time t-1 is > not a causal theory that explains the phenomenon of X. > Because in your formulation, it is logical to say that > X in time t depends on the value of X in time (t-2), > since the value of X in time t-1 is explained by the > value of X in time t-2. This logically leads us to > infinite regresson. One will have to answer, how did X > come into being in the first place. And here your > causal explanation must identify a cause other than X. > That's why a theory of X that explains X on the basis > of X is not a theory. If you are doing forcasting etc. > then, of course, it makes sense to take into account > the previous values of the variable. But then > forcasting and theory are two different animals. > Cheers, ajit sinha > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. > http://messenger.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 04 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT