In defence of the nominalist ontology of money

Geoffrey Ingham

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 2021, vol. 44, issue 3, 492-507

Abstract: “Historicizing the money of account: a critique of the nominalist ontology of money” (Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 3, 43) argues that “money itself” is always something more than money of account; that nominalists mistakenly believe that Keynes shared their position; and that money of account is historically specific to medieval Europe. This response contends that the case is based on misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and imprecise arguments.

Date: 2021
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01603477.2021.1913755 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:mes:postke:v:44:y:2021:i:3:p:492-507

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/MPKE20

DOI: 10.1080/01603477.2021.1913755

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Post Keynesian Economics from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().