Sickonomics : Diagnoses and remedies

Original article can be found at: http://www.tandfonline.com/ Copyright Taylor & FrancisIn their recent analysis of the alleged decay in modern economics, Ben Fine and Dimitris Milonakis claim to find its source and origin in the "marginal revolution" of the 1870s. They argue that this development led to "methodological individualism" and the detachment of economics from society and history. I contest their account of the marginal revolution and of the role of Alfred Marshall among others. They also fail to provide an adequate definition of methodological individualism. I suggest that neoclassical economics adopted a denuded concept of the social rather than removing these factors entirely. No such removal is possible in principle. It is also mistaken to depict neoclassical economics as the science of prices and the market. In truth, neoclassical economics fails to capture the true nature of markets. I consider some sketch an alternative explanation of the sickness of modern economics, which focuses on institutional developments since World War II.Peer reviewe

Imaginary moneys as international units of account

The choice of unit of account in longer term unhedged contracts involving parties from multiple countries influences the size and distribution of currency risk. Contracts currently predominantly use the same unit as means of payment and as unit of account. The relative performance of such single currency units of account are contrasted with basket units of account (“imaginary monies” (Einaudi, 1953)) without associated payments function.