Refuting Samuelson's Capitulation on the Re-switching of Techniques in the Cambridge Capital Controversy

TL;DR

This paper challenges Samuelson's 1966 conclusion in the Cambridge capital controversy, showing that his capitulation was based on a flawed understanding of the theory of production, using a new non-switching theorem.

Contribution

It introduces a new non-switching theorem that refutes Samuelson's capitulation and clarifies the logical consistency of the economic theory of production.

Findings

Samuelson's capitulation was logically unfounded.

The new non-switching theorem invalidates his conclusions.

Supports the internal consistency of the marginal theory of production.

Abstract

Paul A. Samuelson's (1966) capitulation during the so-called Cambridge controversy on the re-switching of techniques in capital theory had implications not only in pointing at supposed internal contradiction of the marginal theory of production and distribution, but also in preserving vested interests in the academic and political world. Based on a new non-switching theorem, the present paper demonstrates that Samuelson's capitulation was logically groundless from the point of view of the economic theory of production.