The abject failure of orthodox and heterodox distribution theory

Comment on Lars Syll on ‘Trading in Myths’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Aug 30

For most people, economics is a story about wealth and riches, the conflicts between capitalists and workers, the fraud and deception of the corrupt one-percenters, and the hardships of the honest and exploited/alienated 99-percenters. This is the soap-opera view of economics.

The scientific view is not focused on the human drama/farce/myth but on the functioning of the economic system as a whole. Economics leaves all questions about Human Nature/ motives/behavior/action to psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, political science, biology, etc. #1, #2

Because NO way leads from the explanation of Human Nature/motives/behavior/action to the explanation of how the economic system works, all behavioral approaches have failed. The actual state of economics is this: Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism are mutually contradictory, axiomatically false, materially/formally inconsistent, and all got profit wrong. The fact is that the Walrasian approach = microfoundations and the Keynesian approach = macrofoundations have already died in the cradle.

Therefore, economics has to undergo a Paradigm Shift. Economic analysis has to be based on entirely new macrofoundations, and the fundamental questions have to be put again at the top of the agenda and answered with the help of better analytical tools. The key concepts of classical economics were profit, capital, exploitation, and classes. So let us, first of all, revisit profit.

The elementary production-consumption economy is defined with this set of macroeconomic axioms: (A0) The objectively given and most elementary configuration of the economy consists of the household and the business sector, which in turn consists initially of one giant fully integrated firm. (A1) Yw=WL wage income Yw is equal to wage rate W times working hours. L, (A2) O=RL output O is equal to productivity R times working hours L, (A3) C=PX consumption expenditure C is equal to price P times quantity bought/sold X. #3

Under the conditions of market-clearing X=O and budget-balancing C=Yw in each period, the price is given by P=W/R (1), i.e., the market-clearing price is equal to unit wage costs. This is the most elementary form of the macroeconomic Law of Supply and Demand. It translates into W/P=R (2), i.e., the real wage is equal to the productivity. For the graphical representation, see Graphic. #4

Monetary profit is defined as Qm≡C−Yw, and monetary saving as Sm≡Yw−C. It always holds Qm≡−Sm, in other words, the business sector’s deficit (surplus) equals the household sector’s surplus (deficit). Loss is the counterpart of saving, and profit is the counterpart of dissaving. This is the most elementary form of the macroeconomic Profit Law.

In the elementary production-consumption economy, labor gets the whole product according to (2), and profit for the business sector as a whole is zero because of C=Yw. All changes in the system are reflected by the market-clearing price. As a matter of principle, the elementary production-consumption economy can go on indefinitely at any level of employment L. The living standard of the workers is defined by productivity.

Now, the business sector is split into two identical firms, and firm 1 is supposed to cut the wage rate W1 by half. From this follows that the market-clearing price P declines if all other variables are unchanged. Firm 2 is affected because total income Yw falls, and with it consumption expenditures C and the market-clearing price P.

The reduction of the wage rate W1 increases the profit of firm 1 and produces a loss in firm 2. When we look alone at firm 1, we see what Smith, Mill, Ricardo, and Marx have seen before, to wit, wages down―profit up. This fits the time-honored stereotype of wages and profits as antagonists.

However, this situation cannot last for long if profit has been zero in the initial period. In this limiting case, firm 2 makes a loss that is exactly equal to firm 1’s profit. The arbitrary wage rate cut of firm 1 does NOT increase the profit for the business sector as a WHOLE but only REDISTRIBUTES it between the firms.

Seen from the perspective of a single firm, the antagonism between wages and profits is real. This, though, is parochial realism. The complete picture reveals that firm 1 is better off at the disadvantage of firm 2, and the workers of firm 2 are better off to the disadvantage of the workers of firm 1 because at a lower market-clearing price, they absorb a bigger share of output O with their unaltered income. The situation of the business sector as a WHOLE is unchanged, i.e., Qm=0, and the same is true for the household sector as a WHOLE, i.e., X=O and W/P=R. If there is exploitation, it happens WITHIN the sectors. A partial wage rate change leads only to a redistribution of profits between the firms and of output between the workers.

For the economy as a whole, the classical antagonism of wages and profits is an optical illusion. This has a bearing on the POLITICAL notion of classes. There is NO distributional conflict about output between profits and wages. When classes are defined according to these economic categories, the actual conflict materializes WITHIN the classes.

When, in the limiting case, there are two groups of workers and two groups of capitalists, and the first group of capitalists exploits the first group of workers by slashing the wage rate, then the exploiters OBJECTIVELY act in the interest of the second group of workers, whatever their own subjective motives may be. The second group of workers has no economic interest in overcoming the wage discrimination of the first group, yet the second group of capitalists has indeed because its profit is indirectly affected. On a deeper level, the relationship between the two groups of capitalists is antagonistic. The same holds for the two groups of workers. What looks like exploitation is, in fact, CROSSOVER EXPLOITATION WITHIN the Marxian classes. This explodes the idea of a ‘natural’ common class interest and, by consequence, of a ‘natural’ class war.

The myopic agents, workers, and capitalists alike are blind to the interdependencies of crossover exploitation and therefore prone to the Fallacy of Composition. The generalization of partial effects has the compelling logic of the profit and loss account and the irrefutable empirical evidence of firm 1 on its side. Indeed, what could be more convincing? Wages down ― profits up, it works. The INVISIBLE redistribution of profit and output is anonymously effected behind the agents’ backs by the market-clearing price. Neither capitalists nor workers understand how the market system works. Neither do economists since Smith, Ricardo, #5, and Marx. #3 Neither does Lars Syll.

Because the profit theory is false since Adam Smith, both orthodox and heterodox distribution theories are false to this very day. There is no such thing as good heterodox guys and bad orthodox guys or vice versa; economists ― ALL of them ― have to be expelled from the sciences.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 Economics is NOT about Human Nature but the economic system
#2 Economics is NOT a social science
#3 Profit for Marxists
#4 Graphic AXEC31 Elementary production-consumption economy
#5 When Ricardo Saw Profit, He Called It Rent: On the Vice of Parochial Realism

Related 'No exploitation, no classes'

***

REPLY to Yoshinori Shiozawa on Sep 6

You say: “His axiomatic system is a set of statistical concepts by which to describe what happened in the past. There is no observation or argument on laws of economics, i.e., on how the economic system works.”

This is false. The axioms refer to one period, and the periods are seamlessly interconnected.#1. The four basic laws are listed under the label Graphic. #2

You say: “His starting point in construction his economics is pure consumption economy. He is wrong to start from consumption economy because it only leads to pure exchange economy.”

This is false. What I call the elementary production-consumption economy is the same thing that Keynes meant by “monetary theory of production”. The elementary consumption economy is ANALYTICALLY PRIOR to the more complex investment economy. It should perhaps more precisely be called the elementary production-consumption economy.

You say: “He is based on a wrong dichotomy of micro and macro and seeks macrofoundations. He is not aware that there are cyclic causal relations between the whole structure and processes and people’s behaviors as a result of evolution in this macro structure and processes.”

This is false. Macrofoundations are the correct axiomatic starting point. #3 Given the macro axioms, which refer explicitly to ONE giant firm, one has to proceed top-down by successive DIFFERENTIATION until one arrives at the individual agent. Differentiation is the OPPOSITE of bottom-up or aggregation. It is microfoundations and bottom-up that are the defining idiocy of Walrasianism, which literally produces the aggregation problem.

There is NO dichotomy: Walrasian microfoundations have to be FULLY replaced with the correct macrofoundations. #4


#1 The Synthesis of Economic Law, Evolution, and History
#2 Graphic AXEC107 Econ Starter Kit: First Economic Law, Law of Supply and Demand, Profit Law, Employment Law
#3 First Lecture in New Economic Thinking
#4 Economic methodology for the little guy

The thing with profit and exploitation

Comment on Peter Dorman on ‘It’s Red Friday and Time to Discuss the Role of Exploitation in Profit’

Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference on Nov 28

The Palgrave Dictionary summarizes: “A satisfactory theory of profits is still elusive.” (Desai, 2008)

This perhaps surprises the general public: economists do not know to this day what profit is. As a consequence, they have NO idea about how the monetary economy works. More specifically, economics consists of four main approaches, Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, and Austrianism, and NONE of them gets profit right. #1

As a consequence, economic policy guidance has never had sound scientific foundations. Because economists never captured the essence of the market economy, whatever they have said for or against capitalism, communism, or socialism has been based upon provably false theories about how the monetary economy works.

Since Ricardo and Marx, both orthodox and heterodox economists believe that there is a fundamental antagonism between the firm’s owners (= capitalists) and the employees/workers.

The idea that antagonism between classes is built into the economic system, though, rests on an optical illusion. And this optical illusion ultimately derives from the theory of the firm. It is obviously true that an individual firm can increase profit by lowering the wage rate. But this is NOT true for the economy as a whole. To generalize what is true for an isolated part of a system is known in methodology as the Fallacy of Composition.

In the most elementary case, the interdependencies of the economic system have the unintended effect that if firm A makes a profit by lowering the wage rate, firm B (= the rest of the economy) makes a loss under the initial macroeconomic condition that total consumption expenditure is equal to total wage income. #2 And, by the same token, the real wage of the workers of firm A decreases and that of the workers of firm B increases. So, what happens is that a redistribution of profit between firms and a redistribution of output between households takes place.

In political terms, this means that there are NO CLASSES with a common interest. Put differently, what appears as an exploitation of the workers of firm A is only part of the complete picture of a REDISTRIBUTION of profits WITHIN the business sector and a REDISTRIBUTION of output WITHIN the household sector. In other words, the exploitation of workers in firm A benefits the workers in firm B. And the profit increase of firm A’s capitalists comes from firm B’s capitalists. Taking all capitalists together, their profit does not change. Taking all workers together, their real share of output does not change.

Conclusion: the naive concept of exploitation has to be replaced by the concept of crossover exploitation.

Economists are supposed to be experts on the economy. So it is quite natural to think that they know how the profit mechanism works; after all, this is the foundational phenomenon of their subject matter. Yet, this is definitely not the case. Economists are incompetent scientists, and after 200+ years, they are still stuck in the Fallacy of Composition. So, economists have NOTHING to contribute to the discussion about how the economy, markets, and firms should be organized.

Economists have discussed the role of exploitation and profit without ever coming to the core of the matter. It is Red Friday, and time for them to retire now for good.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 How the Intelligent Non-Economist Can Refute Every Economist Hands Down and
The Profit Theory is False Since Adam Smith. What About the True Distribution Theory? and Profit for Marxists.
#2 Essentials of Constructive Heterodoxy: Profit

Related 'How to end the Punch and Judy show about profit'

***

REPLY to Tom Hickey on Nov 27

There are three things that are intertwined but have to be analytically kept apart: (i) Theory of Value, (ii) Theory of Profit for the economy as a whole, (iii) Distribution of overall profit between sub-sectors (production, banking, land use, etc.) and individual firms.

The Law of Value says that relative prices are inverse to productivities. #1 This Law replaces the Labour Theory of Value.

The Profit Law for the pure consumption economy says that OVERALL profit depends on the expenditure ratio and the distributed profit ratio. #2

It holds in particular:
• Overall profit does neither depend upon the agents’ personal qualities, motives, their ideas about what profit is, nor on profit-maximizing behavior.
• In order that profit comes into existence for the first time in the elementary production-consumption economy, the household sector must run a deficit for at least in one period.
• Profit is, in the simplest case, determined by the increase and decrease of the household sector’s debt. There is a close relation between profit/loss and the expansion/contraction of credit for the economy as a whole.
• Wage income is the factor remuneration of labor input. Profit is NOT a factor income. Since capital is nonexistent in the elementary production-consumption economy, profit is not functionally attributable to capital.
• There is no relation at all between profit, capital, marginal, or average productivity.
• Profit has no real counterpart in the form of a piece of the output cake. Profit has a monetary counterpart.
• The existence and magnitude of overall profit do not depend on the ownership of the firms that comprise the business sector.
• The value of output is, in the general case, different from the sum of factor incomes. This is the defining property of the monetary economy.
• Profit is a factor-independent residual and qualitatively different from wage income. Therefore, it is an elementary mistake to maintain that total income is the sum of wages and profits. #3
• There is no antagonism between total wages and total profits, and the distribution of consumption goods output has nothing at all to do with profit.
• Innovation and efficiency are irrelevant for the profit of the business sector as a WHOLE. It is a Fallacy of Composition to trivially generalize what can be observed in an individual firm.

In sum, the classical/neoclassical and Keynesian/Post-Keynesian Theories of Value/Profit are provably false.

#1 The Pure Logic of Value, Profit, Interest
#2 Essentials of Constructive Heterodoxy: Profit
#3 When Ricardo Saw Profit, He Called It Rent: On the Vice of Parochial Realism

***

COMMENT on Andrew Anderson on Nov 28

You say: “A very interesting thing to me is that in the Bible profit is good but profit taking ISN’T(!) good ...”

It is common knowledge that the Bible belongs to the sphere of religion/belief/storytelling and that economics belongs to the sphere of science/knowledge/proof.

Both spheres do not mix, never have, and never will. Your post is out of place.

***

REPLY to jrbarch on Nov 29

It is common knowledge that the content and level of economic discussion are far below zero. There is NO need for you or anybody else to deliver more examples.

For details, see FakeNews, FakeScience: economics in the information age.

***

REPLY to jrbarch on Nov 30

You say: “I do have an issue with ‘trust me, I’m a scientist’.”

There is NO issue at all; there is only your abysmal ignorance and confusion. Science is NOT about trust or credibility or belief or authority, but only about proof, more specifically, about the logical and empirical consistency of a theory. A theory, in turn, is the best humanly possible mental representation of reality.

Since the ancient Greeks introduced the distinction between opinion (= doxa) and knowledge (= episteme), NO scientist has ever said Believe me. As Popper put it: “... a critical discussion is well-conducted if it is entirely devoted to one aim: to find a flaw in the claim that a certain theory presents a solution to a certain problem.”

So, there is NO issue at all. I have given you the Profit Law, and if you have qualms about it, you are invited to refute it. Of course, you cannot. But you can endlessly waffle about Love, the Divine, your Australian aboriginal brothers, and all the other good vibration stuff.

Here is the ultimate test to practically find out the difference between doxa and episteme for yourself: You have the choice to board an aircraft that has been designed/constructed by your good vibration folks and one that has been designed/constructed by scientists/ engineers. Who do you REALLY trust?

OK, and now get out of economics.

Economics and the Fallacy of Insufficient Abstraction

Comment on Sandwichman on ‘'If There Is Any Such Thing': Why read Hoxie on theory?’

Blog-Reference

What is the core problem of economics? Bagehot made it clear back in 1885: “It [Political Economy] is an abstract science which labours under a special hardship. Those who are conversant with its abstractions are usually without a true contact with its facts; those who are in contact with its facts have usually little sympathy with and little cognisance of its abstractions. Literary men who write about it are constantly using what a great teacher calls ‘unreal words,’ ― that is, they are using expressions with which they have no complete vivid picture to correspond. They are like physiologists who have never dissected; like astronomers who have never seen the stars; and, is consequence, just when they seem to be reasoning at their best, their knowledge of the facts falls short. Their primitive picture fails them, and their deduction altogether misses the mark ― sometimes, indeed, goes astray so far, that those who live and move among the facts boldly say that they cannot comprehend ‘how any one can talk such nonsense.’ Yet, on the other hand, these people who live and move among the facts often, or mostly, cannot of themselves put together any precise reasonings about them.”

This, though, was not news because J. S. Mill already reported in 1874 about the two classes of inquirers.

“It has been again and again demonstrated, that those who are accused of despising facts and disregarding experience build and profess to build wholly upon facts and experience; while those who disavow theory cannot make one step without theorizing. But, although both classes of inquirers do nothing but theorize, and both of them consult no other guide than experience, there is this difference between them, and a most important difference it is: that those who are called practical men require specific experience, and argue wholly upwards from particular facts to a general conclusion; while those who are called theorists aim at embracing a wider field of experience, and, having argued upwards from particular facts to a general principle including a much wider range than that of the question under discussion, then argue downwards from that general principle to a variety of specific conclusions.”

Bottom line: There are two types of economists, the upwarders and downwarders. This distinction overlaps with the distinction between induction and deduction, which in turn overlaps with the distinction between practitioners and theoreticians.

The core problem of economics is that neither upwarders nor downwarders were particularly successful. After 200+ years, economics is still at the proto-scientific level.

Methodologically, unionists are upwarders: “Unionists are not theorists; unionism is an eminently practical thing.” (Hoxie). “Theory and trade unionism are almost contradictory terms.” (Arnos) As a result, unionists have no true theory of how the economy works and how the aggregate labor and product markets interact. In other words, union policy never had sound scientific foundations but always remained glued to the phenomenological surface. Unionists did not realize what Marx already clearly saw: “That in their appearances things are often presented in an inverted way is something fairly familiar in every science, apart from political economy.”

Because they have always been glued to the immediately practical of the here and now, unionists have never figured out what profit is. #1 As collateral damage, they got stuck at the naive concept of exploitation and never arrived at the concept of crossover exploitation. #2

The fact is that the myopic upwarders, i.e., ‘these people who live and move among the facts’, i.e., labor and business, never arrived at a consistent profit and employment theory. But, and this is one of the worst scientific scandals in human history, neither did Walrasians, Keynesians, Marxians, nor Austrians. #3

Both the upwarders and downwarders fell victim to the Fallacy of Insufficient Abstraction and failed to explain how the actual economy and the labor market work. Time to throw Hoxi’s and Marshall’s and Walras’ and Keynes’ employment theories on the big heap of proto-scientific garbage. #4

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


#1 Profit for Marxists
#2 The thing with profit and exploitation
#3 Unemployment ― the fatal consequence of economists’ scientific incompetence and Have data, lack theory
#4 For the correct approach, see The role of labor and business in a well-organized society

Related 'Rethinking the Phillips curve' and 'Attention: there are THREE types of inflation' and 'Economic bungee jumping without cord'. For details of the big picture, see cross-references Employment.

***

ADDENDUM to Sandwichman on Jun 26

It is a characteristic trait of economics that problems are never solved but endlessly recycled. This explains why economics made no progress since Adam Smith: “... we know little more now about ‘how the economy works,’ ... than we knew in 1790, after Adam Smith completed the last revision of The Wealth of Nations.” (Clower).

Economics is a bit like Nietzsche’s Éternel Retour de la pensée la plus lourde. Among the best-known examples are capital theory, I=S, Lump of Labor Theory, Say’s Law, and Profit Theory. These are monuments of the scientific incompetence of economists.

Your recycling of these issues is a waste of time. Obviously, it escaped your attention that the correct profit and employment theory is available on EconoSpeak and elsewhere. For analytical entry points, see:
Economics and the Fallacy of Insufficient Abstraction
The role of labor and business in a well-organized society
Essentials of Constructive Heterodoxy: Say's Law
The Three Fatal Mistakes of Yesterday Economics: Profit, I=S, Employment

Exploitation and its unintended outcomes: an axiomatic view of Marx's surplus value {09}

Working paper at SSRN

Working paper at ARCHIVE

Abstract  The present paper scrutinizes the logical foundation of Marx's dialectic analysis of the evolving money economy. The frame of reference is thereby given with the set of structural axioms. It turns out, first, that the commonplace notion of exploitation has to be replaced by crossover exploitation among capitalists and workers; second, that the concept of surplus-value cannot explain the existence and magnitude of overall profits; finally, that the real shares of output are determined in the spheres of income and expenditure and not, as classical, Marxian and neoclassical economists unanimously maintain, in the sphere of production.

Pareto-efficiency, Hayek’s marvel, and the invisible executor

Own post on Real-World Economics Review Blog

Blog-Reference

That's good for you and the economy as a whole, modern economists say: "For example, let A  be a situation in which you earn $ 500 a week and I earn $ 1,000 a week and let B   be a situation in which you earn $ 750 a week and I earn 1,000. Then, according to Pareto, B   is superior to A, because your pay is higher and mine is the same. ... Modern economists refer to a shift from A  to B ... as a “Pareto improvement,” and they define an economic outcome in which all such moves have been exhausted as “Pareto-efficient.” (Cassidy, 2010, p. 54)

This, of course, is only the first half of the story. What we look at is alone the income situation. To come full circle, expenditures must also be taken into account. So let us assume that our elementary economy consists of one firm, and you and me as workers. Together we produce 1,000 units of a consumption good. We spend our income fully, hence consumption expenditure is always equal to income. Our budgets are balanced.

Thus, in case A total consumption expenditures are $ 1,500. With an output of 1,000 units, this gives a market-clearing price of $ 1.50. You buy 333.3 units and I buy 666.7. We consume all these units in the period under consideration. Hence my real consumption is initially double yours. Note in passing that the profit of the firm we work for is exactly zero. The firm invariably gets back from the consumption good market what it pays in wages. The whole configuration is reproducible for an indefinite time.

Now your income situation improves and mine remains unaltered. In case of B, the consumption expenditures are $ 1,750. Accordingly, the market-clearing price is $ 1.75. You buy now 428.6 units (compared to 333.3) and I buy 571.4 (compared to 666.7). In real terms, the situation is no longer Pareto-efficient. Clearly, you are better off and I am worse off. The situation would still be Pareto-efficient if the price had not changed. Under the condition of budget-balancing and market-clearing, though, the price must rise. Note in passing that the firm's profit is still zero. The firm is therefore indifferent between A and B.

To define Pareto-efficiency as in the introductory quote is a specimen of superficial economic analysis. The methodological point is that Cassidy's example is a partial model and what is needed is a total model. From a partial model, no general conclusions can be drawn. This is the Fallacy of  Composition. Ultimately, partial analysis is a political shell game.

In the total model, the price must increase in order to clear the market. This is the first of the diverse functions of the price mechanism. According to Hayek, the price system is a kind of telecommunications system which makes that the decentralized markets function properly. Not only this, it directs workers and other resources to their most productive uses. In other words: it realizes overall Pareto-efficiency.

"I have deliberately used the word "marvel" to shock the reader out of the complacency with which we often take the working of this mechanism for granted. I am convinced that if it were the result of deliberate human design, and if the people guided by the price changes understood that their decisions have significance far beyond their immediate aim, this mechanism would have been acclaimed as one of the greatest triumphs of the human mind." (Hayek, 1945, p. 527)

With this, Hayek established the metaphor of the market as a ‘superior information processor’ (Mirowski, 2013, p. 78 et seq.) that ultimately guarantees the efficiency of the whole economy and the optimal allocation of resources. This sounds good, nay, irresistibly good in the age of computers, but as Keynes remarked about Hayek back then with an eye to intolerable unemployment: "We get on very well in private life. But what rubbish his theory is." (Keynes, quoted in Cassidy, 2010, p. 40)

Hayek, to be sure, tells the best part of the story. HOWEVER; The major function of the price mechanism is not information processing but redistribution. The higher market clearing price in our example does not only signal that a higher nominal demand interacts with an unchanged real supply but it actually redistributes the output. When all is said and done I have 95 units lost and you have them won. This 28 percent reduction in my real income is what shocks me out of complacency about the working of the price system. The real marvel is that it is not you personally who takes something away from me. It is the anonymous market price, a.k.a. the Invisible Hand. You, too, pay the higher price and, in a twisted logic, "suffer" with me.

However, if the productivity increases in the period under consideration then the redistribution can even take place at a constant market-clearing price. In this case, my real income remains constant but you cash in on the productivity effect. The market price would not signal anything and the whole action would count as a Pareto-improvement. Note again that profit does not change at all, it is still zero.

The distinctive feature of the elementary economy is that, as a matter of principle, there is no hindrance to repeating the shift from A to B as often as anybody likes. In other words, you can push me over the economic cliff with active support from the price system, or I can push you. All this is Pareto-efficient in nominal terms. Needless to emphasize that the elementary economy does not cover profit, interest, investment, etc. because all this would not affect the key point of the analysis.

In sum, our exemplary price system clears the market but does not help to bring about Pareto efficiency in real terms. Just the contrary, it helps to bring about a redistribution of the real product. The remarkable thing about the price system is not that it is a superhuman information processor but that it is an invisible executor that, in a sense, serves social peace. Imagine for a moment that the tax collector takes 28 percent of your real income away and gives it to me, or vice versa. Such 'madness' would be beyond all bearing. The anonymous price system can perform this feat Pareto-efficiently.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke


References
Cassidy, J. (2010). How Markets Fail. The Logic of Economic Calamities. London, New York, etc.: Penguin.
Hayek, F. A. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. American Economic Review, 35(4): 519–530. URL
Mirowski, P. (2013). Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste. London, New York: Verso.

For more about the price system see AXECquery.

For more about distribution see AXECquery.

For more about Hayek see AXECquery.

For more about crossover exploitation see AXECquery.