================= HES POSTING ==========================
FC and RBE mentioned "The Wealth of Nations" as one obvious place in which
the terms "real" and "nominal" are used. I wonder, though, if Smith was
actually the first to do so?
In fact, my original question goes beyond the terms themselves and extends
to the ideas which they represent. The idea that, say, one's money wage was
a kind of mask, so to speak, and that what mattered was what it could buy,
i.e., one's real wage, very loosely defined... in what mediaeval, even
ancient writers, has this idea been discussed? What connections are there,
if any, between "real" economic variables and Platonic ideas (neo- or
otherwise) of "essence"?
Likewise, if the (philosophical) concept of "nominalism" is the idea that
"names are all there is", interpreted as a focus on money values this
sounds positively Post Keynesian. In a sense, the antecedents of this idea
might be harder to track down, since, apart from times of high inflation,
money values have presumably always been the "common sense" way to measure,
e.g., incomes.
(A side issue: when did "nominal" acquire its overtones of the superficial,
as in "he's only a nominal Christian"?)
I probably should ask my questions of those studying, not so much the
history as the philosophy of economics. Any suggestions from those on this
list would, though, be much appreciated (and I know there's at least one
philosopher on HES who's also on PKT;'fess up, Greg). I'd even appreciate
addresses for "philosophy of economics" lists, or names of people I might
contact... or even advice that I should give up what seems to be either a
wild goose chase or a mare's nest.
Thank you.
_________________________________________________________
C.N.Gomersall [log in to unmask]
http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/economics/nick/nick.html
_________________________________________________________
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
