----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:41
PM
Subject: Re. Time? - Correction
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
>
>