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

From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Thu Sep 22 2005 - 10:52:36 EDT

Quoting Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM:

> > 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?

Hi Jerry

If the value of money is held constant it is not possible to construct an
example for temporal valuation theories.  The value of outputs is equal to the
value of inputs plus value added.  Value added is always positive.

A possible exception is when outputs are all zero and there are no stocks left.
I will see if I can come up with a solution to even this.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 24 2005 - 00:00:03 EDT