From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Fri Jun 04 2004 - 07:22:20 EDT
--- Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM> wrote: > > Now one thing Marx didn't do was come up with a > bunch of neologisms. He > pretty much used the vocabulary that existed. Since > people already had ways > of speaking about time he used them. But when it > came to telling time, he > also offered an alternative in terms of ounces of > gold. > > This bears on the question of how we measure ten > hours of labor. > > Howard __________________ This I don't understand. ajit sinha > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ajit sinha" <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM> > To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> > Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 6:21 AM > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) Ajit's paper > > > > 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 > === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 05 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT