Re. Time? - Correction

["Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

For:

 

The notion that "time" is an independent factor in analytical economics is a
pre-supposition in need of justification - as, it seems, is the raison
d'etre of analytical economics in the first place.

 

Read:

 

The notion that "time" is not an independent factor in analytical economics is a
pre-supposition in need of justification - as, it seems, is the raison
d'etre of analytical economics in the first place.

 

Gunnar

 

Re. the following:

> Educate me, please.
>
> I seem forever to be seeing in economics theory the ignoring of time.

Comment:

The "ignoring of time" is standard fare in theoretical physics - that is to
say, the proverbial "arrow of time" can go forward or backward because the
physical relationships under investigation are not time-dependent.

A case in point:  the 19th century Laplacian version of Newtonian Mechanics.

The notion that "time" is an independent factor in analytical economics is a
pre-supposition in need of justification - as, it seems, is the raison
d'etre of analytical economics in the first place.

Gunnar




----- Original Message -----
From: "Mason Clark" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 3:51 PM
Subject: Time?


> Educate me, please.
>
> I seem forever to be seeing in economics theory the ignoring of time.
>
> Not taking sides or commenting on this particular quotation, but as an
example
> that happened to catch my eye this moment:
>
> "familiar proposition that doubling everybody's nominal purchasing power
> overnight doubles the price level"
>
> Frequently I seem to see relationships -- formulas -- stated that assume
an
> instant reaction.  But the economy is never in equilibrium (?); all states
are
> transitory; and  **the transitions are the essence**.
>
> Am I confused?
>
>         Mason C
>
>