{"title":"为唯名论的货币本体论辩护","authors":"G. Ingham","doi":"10.1080/01603477.2021.1913755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":47197,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Post Keynesian Economics","volume":"44 1","pages":"492 - 507"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01603477.2021.1913755","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In defence of the nominalist ontology of money\",\"authors\":\"G. Ingham\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01603477.2021.1913755\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47197,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Post Keynesian Economics\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"492 - 507\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01603477.2021.1913755\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Post Keynesian Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.2021.1913755\",\"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/10.1080/01603477.2021.1913755","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
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.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
