@article{oai:shiga-u.repo.nii.ac.jp:00008265,
 author = {梅澤, 直樹},
 issue = {第394号},
 journal = {彦根論叢},
 month = {Dec},
 note = {Departmental Bulletin Paper, Today, movements of global money often disturb the world economy. That means “what’s money?” becomes the critical issue to understand the economic situation in our times. But standard economics does not take up this kind of question. On the contrary, heretical economic theories have sometimes shown attractive approaches to this question. One such approach was Marx’s money theory; but it had a defect. To solve this problem, two types of approach have been proposed. On the one hand, Kohzoh Uno proposed a methodological device which was relatively close to Marx’s original theory. On the other, Michel
Aglietta, Andre Orlean, Hidenari Yoshizawa, Kohjin Karatani and others proposed a socioeconomic approach connected with modern philosophical thought, namely structuralism and social constructionism. These two approaches seem radically different, but I think Uno’s methodological device has potential adaptability when fully developing it’s connotation.
This paper attempts to fully develop the connotation of Uno’s methodological device and
to confirm whether there is a relatively close relationship between the two approaches to
overcome the defect of Marx’s money theory.
In other words, this paper considers money theory to confirm whether Uno’s methodological device has a relatively close relationship with modern philosophical thought., 彦根論叢, 第394号, pp. 160-173, The Hikone Ronso, No.394, pp. 160-173},
 pages = {160--173},
 title = {貨幣論の提起する方法論的問題をめぐって},
 year = {2012}
}