> When you say "input prices", what
> are they? Aren't you defining your "input price" at a point in
> time--that is the point of time when inputs were bought.
Why must all of the inputs be purchased at a single moment in time? Why
can't the purchasing of inputs, so long as it occurs before the start of a
production period, be staggered in time?
I think what you are assuming is that the time when one period ends is the
exact time that another period begins. In that instant, I gather that you
are assuming that all of the commodity output is sold and all commodity
inputs are purchased. Why make this assumption?
(btw, if we say, with Marx, that the period of time transporting the
commodity output to the market is included in the period of production,
then what about the period of time that it takes to transport inputs --
e.g. elements of constant fixed capital -- following sale to the site of
production?).
One should also remember (when we discuss the side issue of Marx's
theory), that a temporal analysis was explicitly included in his
presentation of "The Process of Circulation of Capital" (Volume 2) --
the drafts of which were authored after the drafts for what became Vol. 3
but which is *logically prior* to the analysis in Volume 3. Thus, before
we even get to the level of abstraction associated with Vol 3, we have
already incorporated into our analysis an examination of circulation,
including the explicit discussion of circulation time. How can circulation
take time in Vol 2 but only be defined for a single moment in time at a
more concrete level of abstraction?
> Similarly
> for your "output prices". So both your "input prices" and "output
> prices" are defined for only a point in time.
See above comments.
<snip>
> The question we are discussing is whether a theory of price can
> entertain time dimension or not. So let us keep to that.
As you wish. For that reason, I am only responding now to that section of
your post which focuses on that issue.
In solidarity, Jerry