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