Thomas Piketty, Anwar Shaikh and Heather Boushey at The New School

6 Oct, 2014 at 20:12 | Posted in Economics, Politics & Society | 3 Comments



  1. The profit theory is false since Adam Smith. What can you expect from distribution theory?
    Comment on ‘Thomas Piketty, Anwar Shaikh and Heather Boushey at The New School’

    Critical economists never bought into marginalism as a theory of income distribution: “Neoclassical marginal productivity theory is a collapsed theory from a both historical and — as shown already by Sraffa in the 1920s, and in the Cambridge capital controversy in the 1960s and 1970s — theoretical point of view.” (Syll, 2014, p. 40). Quite naturally Heterodoxy is drawn to Marx. Unfortunately, Marx also got it wrong. For the formal proof see (Kakarot-Handtke, 2014).

    All major economic schools lack a consistent profit theory and therefore all distribution theories are hanging in the air. Piketty is no exception. As Hicks already observed: economics is “a science still groping in the dark” (Hicks, 1931, p. 170).

    Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    Hicks, J. R. (1931). The Theory of Uncertainty and Profit. Economica, (32):
    170–189. URL

    Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2014). Profit for Marxists. SSRN Working Paper Series,
    2414301: 1–25.

    Syll, L. P. (2014). Piketty and the Limits of Marginal Productivity Theory. realworld
    economics review, (69): 36–43. URL

    For an overview about the desolate state of profit theory, which has been known for
    a long time but never rectified, see the web page!profit3/cm3y

  2. Even in the video, Shaikh’s convoluted theory and empirics of the value of labor was a huge critique of Piketty.

  3. The left is taking a pic axe to Piketty ass – Swiss cheese is the result (he,he).

    “Egalitarianism’s latest foe: a critical review of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-Frist Century” Yanis Varoufakis

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at
Entries and Comments feeds.