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.

中文翻译：

---

为货币的唯名论本体论辩护

摘要

“将记账货币历史化：对货币的唯名论本体论的批判”（后凯恩斯经济学杂志，3, 43）认为“货币本身”总是比记账货币更重要的东西；唯名论者错误地认为凯恩斯同意他们的立场；这种记账资金在历史上是中世纪欧洲特有的。该答复认为，此案是基于误解、误解和不精确的论点。