Gerald Levy wrote:
>
> You might as well add all of those Marxists to the
> chorus who have a concept of disequilibrium dynamics
> since you can't have a theory of disequilibrium without a
> theory of equilibrium. How else would you know that there was
> disequilibrium unless you had an equilibrium reference point?
>
I agree with this point. I think the discussion about equilibrium vs.
disequilibrium is ill-posed since it does not adequately deal with
different types of equilibriums. Perhaps an example from demographics
could help:
1. If a population is taken as a constant over time we can say it is
in 'static equilibrium'.
2. If it is growing at a constant rate it is in a 'dynamic
equilibrium', even if rates of fertility/mortality and
immigration/emigration may be changing over time.
3. A different concept all together is if its age distribution is
constant over time. Then the population is in a 'statistical
equilibrium', which may or may not violate static or dynamic
equilibriums.
//Dave Z
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed Sep 16 16:35:52 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 30 2009 - 00:00:02 EDT