Re: [OPE-L] basics vs. non-basics

From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Thu Sep 22 2005 - 09:39:06 EDT

> Comparisons of sums of money paid at different times are only
> valid if the value of money has not changed.

Hi again Phil:

Yes, of course.  That was an assumption that I was making in the
numerical example that I should have explicitly indicated.

The point I was suggesting was simple:  one can easily construct
a numerical example (which was a special case of the example
you originally suggested) in which the value of the output at the
end of  t + 1 is less than the value of the input at the beginning of
t + 1.  That is, there is a loss of aggregate value that can occur
over the course of a period and from one time period to another.

You might say that under this circumstance "simultaneous valuation
theories, of course, breakdown."   What about temporalist valuation
theories?  Which of those theories allows for the possibility that
the value of inputs at one time (where the value of money is
unchanged) is less than the value of outputs at a later date?  Which
temporalist theories specifically include the possibility that aggregate
value is 'lost'/'destroyed' (in some other way than having use-value
consumed) over time?

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 23 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT