Why the acrimony? Reply to Davidson

Critical Review 7 (2-3):407-421 (1993)
Our response to Davidson is two?pronged. First, we dispute the basis for his dismissal of Austrian economics as presented by O'Driscoll and Rizzo. In particular, we reject his claim, dictated entirely by his Post Keynesian perspective, concerning an ?identical axiomatic foundation? of Austrian and neoclassical economics. Second, we seek to show that Davidson's criticism of neoclassicism (and by implication of Austrianism) is based on a superficial, incorrect, and outmoded reading of neoclassical economics.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/08913819308443308
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 15,914
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Julian Fink (2011). Are All Actions Movements of the Agent's Body? Kriterion: Journal of Philosophy 24 (1):52-64.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

3 ( #462,351 of 1,725,584 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #349,437 of 1,725,584 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.