Re: [OPE-L] standard commodity

From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Wed Mar 23 2005 - 14:58:12 EST

>  [Ajit wrote:] Our paper deals with numeraire,
> which has a well defined meaning in economic theory,
> particularly in the theory that our paper is designed
> to critique. How about if I say that poverty is the
> most serious economic problem and your theory says
> nothing about how to measure poverty or reduce
> poverty. So, there! That's my criticism of your
> theory. You will be legitimately allowed to say,
> "bull"!

Ajit and Andy:

This is the issue that I inquired about yesterday.  If
the paper _only_ represents an immanent critique of
marginalism,  then is an ontological dispute relevant?
In such cases logical consistency claims, such as
those raised by Ian,  have more relevance. If, OTOH,
what is being interrogated is a theory of capitalism, then
ontological issues come into play.

But,  there is an ontological critique of marginalism as
well which claims that neo-neoclassical theory can not
adequately describe the essential character of a capitalist
economy. Unless we are talking merely about formal logical
systems which are unconnected to reality and history and mere
figments of the fanciful imagination of logicians, then
ontological issues must be addressed.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 25 2005 - 00:00:02 EST