From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@UFPR.BR)
Date: Thu Mar 24 2005 - 10:28:56 EST
Jerry, what is OTHO? Paulo 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