From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 06:21:27 EDT
Howard, My sense is that when Marx talks about value and its measure in terms of labor time, he is using time in a commonsense manner. I think that the questions relating to philosophy of time or even physics of time (given theory of relativity etc.) are extremely interesting but will take us too far from the issue under consideration. I do feel that time moves faster as I get older and it moves even faster when I'm having good time--but the clock says its all illusion. Should I trust the clock or myself? Cheers, ajit sinha --- Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM> wrote: > 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/ __________________________________ 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