From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Sat Jun 10 2006 - 00:55:16 EDT
Hi Allin > I'm afraid we are already well within the realm of sophistry with > the putative distinction between (a) and (b) above. The > dimensionality of the rental charge is unaffected by the choice of > locution: In a way this is the point. The simple example responds to your introduction of a distinction between a "rental charge" and an "ordinary price". If you understand that this is only a putative distinction then my point is made. > Time drops out of neither formulation. I did not claim that any economic quantity has dimensions 1/time. However, I think either Paul or you did, in the context of suggesting that the price of money-capital was "economic nonsense" and "off the rails". You now agree that time is in the denominator of both quantities. Your initial complaint about the price of money-capital was that it was not quantitifed with respect to time. I explained no price is ever quantified with respect to time. Nonetheless, a dimensional analysis of the return to quantities of money-capital supplied is consistent with the fact that an actual rate of return is received over a period of time. > But since neither of us has succeeded in persuading the other in a > reasonable number of iterations, I feel there is not much point in > pursuing this particular topic. I am always willing to admit when I am wrong. In this particular instance, however, I think the matter is clear. One day, no doubt, the boot will be on the other foot. Best wishes, -Ian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 30 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT