Re: [OPE-L] standard commodity

From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@UFPR.BR)
Date: Thu Mar 24 2005 - 10:28:56 EST

Jerry, what is OTHO?

Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM wrote:

> >  [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