将账户上的钱历史化——一种反驳

IF 0.6 3区经济学 Q4 ECONOMICS

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics Pub Date : 2021-11-02 DOI:10.1080/01603477.2021.1993071

Stefano Sgambati

{"title":"将账户上的钱历史化——一种反驳","authors":"Stefano Sgambati","doi":"10.1080/01603477.2021.1993071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract “In Defence of the Nominalist Ontology of Money” by Geoffrey Ingham (published by the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics in 2021) contends that “Historicising the Money of Account: A Critique of the Nominalist Ontology of Money” (published by the same journal in 2020) is based on misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and imprecisions. The core proposition in “Historicising the Money of Account” is that the money of account, which is generally understood to be a universal attribute of money, is in fact an institution of late medieval and early modern times that has no significant equivalent in today’s world (or in the ancient world, for that matter). This reply is intended to provide further clarification on the historical and ontological specificity of the late medieval institution of the money of account.","PeriodicalId":47197,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Post Keynesian Economics","volume":"45 1","pages":"329 - 337"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Historicizing the money of account—a rejoinder\",\"authors\":\"Stefano Sgambati\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01603477.2021.1993071\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract “In Defence of the Nominalist Ontology of Money” by Geoffrey Ingham (published by the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics in 2021) contends that “Historicising the Money of Account: A Critique of the Nominalist Ontology of Money” (published by the same journal in 2020) is based on misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and imprecisions. The core proposition in “Historicising the Money of Account” is that the money of account, which is generally understood to be a universal attribute of money, is in fact an institution of late medieval and early modern times that has no significant equivalent in today’s world (or in the ancient world, for that matter). This reply is intended to provide further clarification on the historical and ontological specificity of the late medieval institution of the money of account.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47197,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Post Keynesian Economics\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"329 - 337\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Post Keynesian Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.2021.1993071\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Post Keynesian Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.2021.1993071","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

杰弗里·英格姆（Geoffrey Ingham）的摘要《为货币的名义主义本体论辩护》（由《后凯恩斯主义经济学杂志》于2021年出版）认为，《记账货币的历史化：货币名义主义本体的批判》（由同一杂志于2020年出版）是基于误解、失实陈述和不精确性。“记账货币历史化”的核心命题是，记账货币，通常被理解为货币的普遍属性，实际上是中世纪晚期和现代早期的一种制度，在当今世界（或古代世界）没有重要的对等物。这一答复旨在进一步澄清中世纪晚期记账货币制度的历史和本体论特征。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Historicizing the money of account—a rejoinder

Abstract “In Defence of the Nominalist Ontology of Money” by Geoffrey Ingham (published by the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics in 2021) contends that “Historicising the Money of Account: A Critique of the Nominalist Ontology of Money” (published by the same journal in 2020) is based on misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and imprecisions. The core proposition in “Historicising the Money of Account” is that the money of account, which is generally understood to be a universal attribute of money, is in fact an institution of late medieval and early modern times that has no significant equivalent in today’s world (or in the ancient world, for that matter). This reply is intended to provide further clarification on the historical and ontological specificity of the late medieval institution of the money of account.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

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.