From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sun Jun 06 2004 - 08:06:35 EDT
--- Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM> wrote: > Hi Ajit, > > I'm not sure I understand what you don't understand, > but let me repeat the > argument I made: > > Time doesn't measure itself. We select any process, > acvtivity or change > whatsoever and use it to refer to the passage of > time. Where activity > produces a result we can use the result to refer to > the passage of time. > Ounces of gold are a result produced by activity. > Therefore, they can be a > means of referring to the passage of time. Marx > does that. He speaks in > terms of hours because that is the way people speak. > But he measures in > terms of ounces of gold. > > Howard _________________ I think most of us understand that the movement of the earth on its own axis and its movement around the sun is taken as standard on the basis of which we derive our measure of value. But in any case, what I don't understand is are you saying that the unit of time can be changed feom say hour to gram of gold? Or are you saying that one can say that a gram of gold is so many hours? What are you saying and how do you explain? Cheers, ajit sinha > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ajit sinha" <sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM> > To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 7:22 AM > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) Ajit's paper > > > > --- 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. > > > > > > > > === 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 : Tue Jun 08 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT