> Then he is either using "model" as a mere (and not too good) synony for
> "abstraction" or he is wrong. Models as used in economics havd no
> placve in Marx.
>
> If this is true, which I don't think it is, then it is so much the worse
for Marx. What do you see as the essential difference between 'model' and
'abstraction'?
Cheers, Mike