Fine and Lapavitsas accept my critique of neoclassical economics as well as my empirical
findings, but too hastily reject the arguments underlyng both of them. Despite their
complaints to the contrary, my work provides viable definitions of money and markets,
offers a theoretically motivated research program, demonstrates the heterogeneity
of money and markets, deals with standard economic processes, and addresses general
theoretical issues. Within recent economic sociology, both 'context' and 'alternative'
approaches improve on the stark choice between neoclassical economics and conventional
Marxist political economy posed by Fine and Lapavitsas.