Re: [OPE-L] dynamic theories (Gravitation Mechanism)

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Tue Sep 11 2007 - 17:16:47 EDT


That's good to know. It seems we are on sound
foundation. Actually, it seems there is a sort of
consensus growing on this issue in the literature with
Dumenil and Levy standing on the wrong side of the
issue. Cheers, ajit sinha

--- Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> wrote:

> looking at your paper Ajit I am not surprised by the
> results.
> Whenever I have attempted to run such dynamic input
> output models, since my
> masters thesis in 1975 I have always found the
> instabilities your
> mention.
> Frequently they become so severe that the
> reproduction of the system
> fails because one of the industries in the basic
> sector closes down.
>
> Paul Cockshott
>
> www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OPE-L on behalf of ajit sinha
> Sent: Mon 9/10/2007 12:57 PM
> To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
> Subject: Re: [OPE-L] dynamic theories (Gravitation
> Mechanism)
>
> I'm attaching a draft paper written by my colleague
> and myself on gravitation mechanism. I think it is
> directly relevant to 90% of the debate on this list.
> We would welcome all critical as well as 'friendly'
> comments: The abstract is given below:
>
> In this paper we use insights from Sraffa's classic,
> PCMC, to argue that the classical notion of 'centre
> of
> gravitation' is not a sound concept. The market
> mechanics of labour allocation through price signals
> and quantity adjustments, given effectual demands,
> do
> not lead to a 'centre of gravitation'. We work out
> all
> such possible market mechanisms, including the
> specific classical case, and show that the 'centre
> of
> gravitation' is a non-attractive point in all the
> cases.
>
> Cheers, ajit sinha
> --- Ian Wright <wrighti@ACM.ORG> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jerry
> >
> > I think that understanding "a complex dynamic
> > process in which there
> > are tendencies and counter-tendencies and *lots
> and
> > lots* of variables
> > (and hence uncertain outcomes)" requires a formal
> > (e.g. mathematical
> > or computational) approach. Natural language
> > theorizing can encompass
> > a lot of material without really getting to grips
> > with the underlying
> > causality. But there's room for many approaches.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > -Ian.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers
> from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it
> out.
>
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469>




____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT