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