discussion of archive – marx – works – 1847 – wage-labour ch03
- This topic has 34 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
@Alan Kerr,I think you using the concept of "arbitrary" but you the more correct term would be "Stochastic" and it can be analyized with a "Markov model" which is done routinely by capitalist and capitalism. Neigher "stochastic" nor "Markov Model's" were concepts available to Marx in that era in time when he wrote his seminal books and they require advanced automated computation systems (such as a computer) and the science of complexity in order to be used for "computational economics" — below are relevant quotes from wikipedia for your convenince so you don't have to wade through all the irrelevant stuff —- Arbitrary decisions are not necessarily the same as random decisions. For example, during the 1973 oil crisis, Americans were allowed to purchase gasoline only on odd-numbered days if their license plate was odd, and on even-numbered days if their license plate was even. The system was well-defined and not random in its restrictions; however, since license plate numbers are completely unrelated to a person's fitness to purchase gasoline, it was still an arbitrary division of people. Similarly, schoolchildren are often organized by their surname in alphabetical order, a non-random yet still arbitrary method, at least in cases where surnames are irrelevant.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrariness- – – – – – -The term stochastic is used in many different fields, particularly where stochastic or random processes are used to represent systems or phenomena that seem to change in a random way. Examples of such fields include the physical sciences such as biology,[7] chemistry,[8] ecology,[9] neuroscience,[10] and physics[11] as well as technology and engineering fields such as image processing, signal processing,[12] information theory,[13] computer science,[14] cryptography[15] and telecommunications.[16] It is also used in finance, due to seemingly random changes in financial markets.[17][18][19]. . .The financial markets use stochastic models to represent the seemingly random behaviour of assets such as stocks, commodities, relative currency prices (i.e., the price of one currency compared to that of another, such as the price of US Dollar compared to that of the Euro), and interest rates. These models are then used by quantitative analysts to value options on stock prices, bond prices, and on interest rates, see Markov models. Moreover, it is at the heart of the insurance industry.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic- – – – – – -Economics and finance[edit]Markov chains are used in finance and economics to model a variety of different phenomena, including asset prices and market crashes. The first financial model to use a Markov chain was from Prasad et al. in 1974.[dubious – discuss][75] Another was the regime-switching model of James D. Hamilton (1989), in which a Markov chain is used to model switches between periods high and low GDP growth (or alternatively, economic expansions and recessions).[76] A more recent example is the Markov Switching Multifractal model of Laurent E. Calvet and Adlai J. Fisher, which builds upon the convenience of earlier regime-switching models.[77][78] It uses an arbitrarily large Markov chain to drive the level of volatility of asset returns.Dynamic macroeconomics heavily uses Markov chains. An example is using Markov chains to exogenously model prices of equity (stock) in a general equilibrium setting.[79]Credit rating agencies produce annual tables of the transition probabilities for bonds of different credit ratings.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_chain#Economics_and_finance- – – – – – -The following journals specialize in computational economics: ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, [13] Computational Economics,[1]Journal of Applied Econometrics,[14] Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control,[15] and the Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_economics========================================================@Alan Kerralso, you seem to be conflating "automation" with "machine". Machines are a very specefic physical form of automation. There is more automation than their are machines. A checklist is a form of "automation" that may be built by machines or by hand but exists as an abstract mental construct. A voting system is a form of "automation" and a system of stocks and shareholders used to decide the behavior of a company is a form of "automation". Regardless of whether it's created with a computer or by hand with paper and pencil or just spoken without the use of any form of automation, it seems to me that Marx meant "automation" not the limited definition "machine" which would deprive marx words of much of their meaning. the first form of "automation" that could be legitimately considered a "machine" was probably writing or perhaps the abacus. Apes in the wild have been document to use a stick as a machine to automate the task of digging food such as termintes out of the ground. It may be you are looking for the words "Von Neuman Machine" which is a "self replicating machine"? ? ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine at present these do not exist except in theory. In general you're definitions seem to be very fuzzy and personalized, so in regards to your other questions or your interpretations of my words, I would say that you don't seem to have the concepts required to accurately describe and comprehend what I have written. Sorry, but I feel my time explaining these issues further for a dialogue would not be productive with you. You may interpret my words however you see fit, but from my perspective it's rather like you're trying to fit the concept of fractions and reducing factions in math into the language of simple counting of whole numbers. I don't think reducing the concepts I'm discussing into your prefered language and frame of reasoning will be productive to understanding.
@Steve-San FranciscoYou can call sticks which apes use to get bugs from holes as machines. Then you can call a motor sending power through transmitting mechanism to a needle able to make stitches as a tool. Then you can prove that the ape’s machine (stick) came long before the dressmaker’s tool (sewing machine). But all you are saying there is that you can reverse the names for things. I see no great problem there so long as your names are clear. The point remains. I mean can you show how an ape from your example could have made the thing for fast automatic stitching of dresses before discovering the stick?
Alan Kerr wrote:@Steve-San FranciscoYou can call sticks which apes use to get bugs from holes as machines. Then you can call a motor sending power through transmitting mechanism to a needle able to make stitches as a tool. Then you can prove that the ape’s machine (stick) came long before the dressmaker’s tool (sewing machine). But all you are saying there is that you can reverse the names for things. I see no great problem there so long as your names are clear. The point remains. I mean can you show how an ape from your example could have made the thing for fast automatic stitching of dresses before discovering the stick?probably not. It seems like sticks should come before complex sticks which should come before a sewing machine. I guess it depends on if you're talking about "one specefic ape" or "all apes as some sort of imaginary group". And are you talking about the concept of a sewing machine or the first invention of a sewing machine or the popular use of sewing machines?If you're talking about what's possible I think you're on the wrong track to understand and explain groups and you need to talk about what's probable. It's certainly possible that one specefic ape might find a sewing machine as a baby ape that was left in a zoo where the baby ape grew up and that zoo had no sticks. But that's not very "probable". Likewise, it's possible (although extremely unlikely) that in some alternate universe apes invent a "sewing machine" made out of fish bone and fish gut to stich together fish skins because they live semi-aquatic life on the edge of where a savanah meets the ocean with a liarge tidal estuary. There's not many sticks in such an environment and the sticks wash away and are allways knarled and not much use for digging ants out of holes which also don't exist in tidal estuaries. So lots of things are "possible" but not "probable". this seems like a silly argument with no point. what exactly is the conclusion you're trying to reach. most of these concerns are irrelevant to most conclusions. So rather than trying to be some clever person who springs a conclusion out of ambiguity, why don't you just get to yoru point and say what it is you're trying to claim or argue as a conclusion and why and what it means in your opinion. Or do you just like playing logic and word games with no point?
The same as you I see a need to help and make the world a better place for my class.The steps of capitalist ownership (small and big) and Socialist Production are not just arbitrary steps. There’s a pattern to find and discuss.This is of practical use to help make the world a better place.
Sun, 08/10/2017 – 11:20pm (new)#31 Steve-SanFranci…1st warning: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.