From: Dave Zachariah (davez@kth.se)
Date: Fri Apr 04 2008 - 07:13:58 EDT
Dogan wrote: > Well, how do you explain then the genesis of money. I hear > from you solely that Marx's explanation does not work, > that it does not hold to the empirical evidences. So, what > is your explanation of the genesis of money? > I think the best theories available are the state theories of money. Paul C has pointed to some good sources. The genesis of money can be traced to taxation by states in pre-capitalist societies. In short, when the tax debt is transferable you have money. Dogan also quoted and asked: > "Science is the construction of parsimonious, internally consistent > models that can reliably predict observations. No amount of > dialectical logic can alter this criterion. " > > Do you mean by construction apriori or aposteriori > constructions? do you mean that dialectical logic is denying predictions? The constructions are based both on axiomatic principles and assumptions that have empirical support. What I meant was that logic --- whether dialectical or not --- deduces certain consequences or predictions and excludes other predictions. More than that it cannot do for science. Whether these predictions are then observed or not is not the domain of logic. //Dave Z _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 00:00:18 EDT