At 05:42 AM 3/27/97 -0800, Andrew Kliman wrote:
>In ope-l 4556, Ajit wrote
>
>"(2) If we assume that the system is in simple reproduction schema and
>everything in the world, leaving prices out, remain constant from period zero
>to period one, then wouldn't you agree that the prices would also remain the
>same in period one as they were in period zero[?]"
>
>I think I now understand a bit better what Ajit means by this. Here's how I
>would explain matters:
>
>(a) you can't "leav[e] prices out"
>
>because
>
>(b) it is imprecise to speak of "the prices [of] period one [and of] period
>zero."
>
>
>There are *three* sets of prices relevant to these two periods:
>
>the input prices of period 0
>
>the output prices of period 0, which ARE the input prices of period 1
>
>the output prices of period 1.
_____________________________
Good to see you in the sun light! My question concerns only two time
periods. Forget the input prices of period zero. We got nothing to do with
that. You have an output price of period zero, which is "givn" and which is
also the input price of period one. The second price we are concerned with
is the output price of period 1. You do deduce output prices of period one
from 'given' input prices of period one, don't you? Now tell me what reasons
you can think of that would make the output prices differ from the input prices?
Since I'm at it, let me add one more question. What kind of prices are your
output prices? Are they prices at which the goods are *actually* sold?
Cheers, ajit sinha