From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Thu Sep 22 2005 - 09:39:06 EDT
> Comparisons of sums of money paid at different times are only > valid if the value of money has not changed. Hi again Phil: Yes, of course. That was an assumption that I was making in the numerical example that I should have explicitly indicated. The point I was suggesting was simple: one can easily construct a numerical example (which was a special case of the example you originally suggested) in which the value of the output at the end of t + 1 is less than the value of the input at the beginning of t + 1. That is, there is a loss of aggregate value that can occur over the course of a period and from one time period to another. You might say that under this circumstance "simultaneous valuation theories, of course, breakdown." What about temporalist valuation theories? Which of those theories allows for the possibility that the value of inputs at one time (where the value of money is unchanged) is less than the value of outputs at a later date? Which temporalist theories specifically include the possibility that aggregate value is 'lost'/'destroyed' (in some other way than having use-value consumed) over time? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 23 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT