The Elusive Rentier Rich

The popularity of Thomas Piketty’s research on wealth inequality has drawn attention to a curious question: why was widening wealth inequality largely neglected by mainstream economists in recent decades? To explore and explain that neglect, I draw on the writing of the early neoclassical economist John Bates Clark, who introduced the notion of the marginal productivity of income distribution at the end of the nineteenth century. I then turn to Piketty’s Capital in order to analyze the salience of marginal productivity theories of income today. I suggest that most of the criticism and praise for Piketty’s research is focused on data that are accessible and measurable, obscuring attention to questions over whether current methods for measuring economic capital are defensible or not. My overarching aim is to explore how “absent” data in economics as a whole help to reinforce blind spots within mainstream economic theory.

Notes from the Editors, July-August 2016

buy this issueCommenting in the January 1973 issue of Monthly Review on the declining condition of the U.S. economy, Paul Sweezy brought back the question of "secular stagnation," first advanced by Keynes's leading follower Alvin Hansen in the late 1930s. "The U.S. economy," Sweezy wrote, in an article entitled "Notes on the U.S. Situation at the End of 1972," "is experiencing at one and the same time a cyclical boom and secular stagnation." The resurfacing of stagnation, he suggested, was the product in part of the U.S. attempt to unwind from the Vietnam War, which had previously been lifting the economy.… A couple of months after the publication of Sweezy's article, in March 1973, the New York Times, seeking to quiet the widening anti-capitalist protests, ran a series of articles on its op-ed page under the general heading of "Capitalism, for Better or Worse." The series concentrated on the two phenomena of the weakening of economic prosperity and the decline of military spending resulting from the drawing down of the Vietnam War. One of these articles, misleadingly entitled "Taking Stock of War," appearing on March 14, was written by Paul Samuelson, then considered to be the leading neoclassical economist in the United States. Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

C.E. FERGUSON’S LOST REPLY TO JOAN ROBINSON ON THE THEORY OF CAPITAL

In 1971, Joan Robinson entered into a debate with the American neoclassical economist C.E. Ferguson in the Canadian Journal of Economics over the efficacy of the neoclassical theory of capital in light of the Cambridge Controversies raging at the time. Recent archival evidence from the Martin Bronfenbrenner Papers at Duke Archive has uncovered a heretofore lost reply Ferguson wrote to Robinson on or around September 1971, three months before his death. That reply is published for the first time as an Appendix to this article. Uncovering this reply, as well as correspondence between Ferguson, Bronfenbrenner, and Solow, shines a light into the American neoclassical camp of the late 1960s and early 1970s as the early phase in the Cambridge Controversies was drawing to a close.

Un exposé de la théorie du déséquilibre

This paper reviews the principal theories on disequilibrium, from Walras to Barro and Grossman. There is a certain tendency in most of these theories to consider equilibrium and disequilibrium as independent phenomenons: at the end of a disequilibrium period, equilibrium in the neoclassical sense reappears, i.e. a paretian optimum. Disequilibrium is at most an adjustment period. But Glower is opposed to this methodology. Equilibrium periods are very influenced by preceding disequilibrium periods. For example, Clower considers unemployment as a situation of equilibrium. This is a nonsense for a neoclassical economist for whom equilibrium is an ideal state. Clower attacks veritably the traditional economic analysis which attributes to the equilibrium of perfect competition certain ideal properties. Finally, we emphasize that the theory of disequilibrium may arrive to explain stagflation.