In defence of the nominalist ontology of money

IF 0.6 3区经济学 Q4 ECONOMICS

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics Pub Date : 2021-05-04 DOI:10.1080/01603477.2021.1913755

G. Ingham

引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract “Historicizing the money of account: a critique of the nominalist ontology of money” (Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 3, 43) argues that “money itself” is always something more than money of account; that nominalists mistakenly believe that Keynes shared their position; and that money of account is historically specific to medieval Europe. This response contends that the case is based on misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and imprecise arguments.

查看原文本刊更多论文

为唯名论的货币本体论辩护

摘要《记帐货币的历史化:对唯名论货币本体论的批判》(《后凯恩斯主义经济学杂志》第3期，第43期)认为，“货币本身”总是比记帐货币更重要的东西;唯名论者错误地认为凯恩斯与他们立场相同;而这种记帐货币在历史上是中世纪欧洲特有的。这种回应认为，该案件是基于误解、误解和不精确的论点。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics ECONOMICS-

CiteScore

1.70

自引率

10.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Post Keynesian Economics is a scholarly journal of innovative theoretical and empirical work that sheds fresh light on contemporary economic problems. It is committed to the principle that cumulative development of economic theory is only possible when the theory is continuously subjected to scrutiny in terms of its ability both to explain the real world and to provide a reliable guide to public policy.