Marx and Minsky: A Comparison

The Political Economy of Finance: Marx or Minsky?
Anthony Eisenbarth and Johnny Fulfer
Abstract—Financialization, whatever its specific scholastic definition to political economy, has become the predominant atmosphere of contemporary capitalism. As a structural transformation of modern market economies, the predominant means of theorizing the workings of financialization have come through Marxian and Minskian approaches. This paper considers both accounts and is concerned with determining, which account–the Marxian or the Minskian–yields the more detailed, enlightened, and fruitful record of crises and recessions.
I. Introduction
The growth of the financial sector is one of contemporary capitalism's most distinguishing features. Ever since the 1970s, the world has seen, on a global scale, a massive surge in the amounts of debt relations, financial instruments, the birth of both debit and credit cards, and even electronic currency. As a share of the GDP of highly developed, capitalist economies, the financial sector's contribution has grown along with such trends, surmounting to around above 20% in the United States. Such developments have led some to label the robustly acquisitive aspects of contemporary capitalism as 'financialization.' This falls mostly part with, as the name implies, the preeminence of the financial sector and central banking within contemporary capitalism. It has become a concern for those in the mainstream or orthodox sphere of economics (Caballero and Krishnamurthy, 2009; Kiyotaki and Moore, 2005), for quite different reasons than those held by heterodox economists. Financialization is a troubling, paradoxical (Crotty, 2000) and historically novel restructuring of capitalism. It is separate from preceding 'stages' of capitalism, due to the extension of credit relations, the importance of financial markets, the actions of central banks, and international banking (Lapavitsas, 2013). While at the same time it promised prosperity it has brought only slow growth, increased unemployment rates, and increased income inequality. Nowhere was the impact of financialization felt more than during the collapse of the world economy in 2007, where the 'Great Moderation' gave way to the 'Great Recession,' exposing both the fragility and contradictions of capital.
Coming to terms with what financialization presents is a crucial concern. The thought and theory of Marx and Minsky are often bandied in explaining the origin and fallout of a capitalist crisis. For both Marx and Minsky, crises and recessions are endogenous to capitalism; capitalism as a structure is imbued with 'flaws,' which make up the plethora of 'business cycles' that 'shock' it every so often. Additionally, both are opposed to isolating the actions of individuals – the very rich, a group of venture capitalists, a hedge fund manager – as the primary causes of the structural imbalances and financial instability, which prevail; the problems lie elsewhere than balance sheet of a single capitalist. For Marx, these problems begin with the very nature of the commodity, the seeming source of all wealth (1976, 133), bearer of a duality of value, which strings itself to the equally contradictory essence of the 'universal equivalent' (184): money (188). So conceived, the ultimate origins of crises lie in the forces of production and exchange; the possibility of crisis inherent in the universal equivalent, which enables the separation of purchase from sale (235-236). These then work themselves out as the underlying contradictions overlaid by the dazzling splendor of wealth capitalism has proven itself capable of producing (236; 1992, 621).
Minsky's theory, the 'financial instability hypothesis,' shares the Marxian emphasis that crises and recessions are structurally embedded within capitalism, but lends itself to its Keynesian roots, but also to an Institutionalist bent (Papadimitrou and Wray, 1998). The latter element of Minsky's influence is seen most evident in his proposal that, in private economy with capital assets and complex financial institutions, prosperous periods encourage the emergence of financial speculation, thus moving the economy from a relatively stable system to an unstable one with pronounced speculation and Ponzi finance (1986). But there remains, even in Minsky's Instituntionalist moments, the influence of Keynes who had highlighted the predominance of 'animal spirits' in a capitalist's choice of where his money capital would be placed (Keynes, 1962, 148).
Both theories recognize the crucial importance of money in a capitalist economy: the purpose of production is the possibility procuring a profit; well-meaning intentions of the capitalist not factoring into the usual course of business. The recognition of money pivoting the economy is where Marx's and Minsky's take on another diverge. Money, within Marx's theory, is the social expression of value whose magnitude is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor embodied in a commodity. For Minsky, money's function takes on those qualities given to it by Keynes. Briefly placed, the role of money in the economy formulated by Keynes pertained to its scarcity (money cannot be produced, has close to zero elasticity of substitution); its ability to yield interest; and the implications of (1) and (2) for the pricing of capital assets, investment, and employment. Minsky's work on the sources and nature of financial instability as an inherent property of the capitalist system is an outgrowth of this theoretical framework (1977). It is one of the primary differences between a Minskian and a Marxian analysis, that the former holds if finance were only properly controlled, regulated, restrained, most of capitalism's worst ills could be withheld from breaking out: Marxists do not share the same sympathies. Minsky was not in any sense a 'revolutionary' in the same sense as Marx; it always remained with Minsky that, although the inherent instability of capitalism as a 'mode of production' was a tragic quality, financial tact from the central bank, could reduce the costs of recessions (2008, 333). In other words, a properly managed financial system could eliminate the ills of capitalist crises (). For a 'traditional' Marxist, the Minskian approach is 'utopian' for it imagines the relations of alienation and exploitation, the instability of capitalism as a mode of production, can be curtailed within it: a sweeping reform of capitalist institutions which eliminate all the 'bads,' but preserve all the goods.
Our purpose is to unfold the primary differences between the respective theories of Marx and Minsky, incorporating their theories to provide a more enlightened look into the political economy of finance. The respective theories provide fruitful accounts of the workings and troubles of financialized capitalism; from Marx the consideration that capitalism is an instable system; from Minsky, the extension and role of credit in the expansion of the financial sector. Firstly, we will summarize the theories of financialization, its origin and its growth, as well as all point out the conflicts within financialized capitalism. With the perplexing enigma of financialization solved (or rather interpreted), we will present the respective of Marx and Minsky, delving into the literature which take up their respective positions; thirdly, we will consider the similarity between Marxian and Minskian approaches to financial crisis.
II. Marxian Theory of Financial Crisis
Perhaps this needs no amount of noting, but unlike any other theorist before him, Marx emphasized the inherent instability of capitalism. Throughout the three volumes of Capital, and in his other numerous writings, mature and young, Marx stressed the 'contradictions' of capital (1991, 622), which lead to the cyclical behavior of the economy; to its growth and to its decline. In other words, capitalism is a system, which is not only structurally unstable, but one which also divorces means from ends.
Fundamentally, the Marxian conception of financialization, presents its growth as one of a restructuring of capitalist economies (Fine 2013; Lapavitsas 2009); a restructuring of the modus operandi and, thus, the source or sources of capital accumulation. It is important to recognize, that Marxists offer differing interpretations of financialization, which comes to no surprise if one has any knowledge of Marxian economics and political philosophy. There are four broad theories within Marxian economics that account for crises and for financialization: the underconsumptionists, the orthodox Marxists, post-Marxists, and what might be simply called 'revisionists.' Marxists happen to be very sectarian, peculiar among schools of economics, throughout its history, Marxian economic thought has seen infighting amongst its ranks for the 'correct' theory of 'correct' reading of Marx's thought.
For Marx the possibility of crisis harks back to the contradiction inherent in the most basic unit of capitalist production: the commodity. This contradiction derives from the fact that every commodity has simultaneously use value and exchange value; that is, it possesses a particular nature as product that serves human needs and a general nature as exchange value. It is money as an independent form of existence of exchange value that enables the separation of exchange and use value. But the double existence of exchange value as a particular commodity and as money underlies the split of the act of exchange into two mutually independent acts of purchase and sale that may be temporally and spatially separated (Marx 1993 [1939]: 147). Capitalism as a mode of production represents an uneasy dialectical unity of a monetary production economy and a financial system. The dual nature of money as a measure of value and as a medium of exchange underlies the essential conflict between the monetary base grafted on money as embodiment of the value of social labor and the financial system grafted on credit money (money as a means of payment). For Marx, value is given by socially necessary, abstract labor time; value created in each act of production is part of the aggregate social product of labor (1976, 166-167), as Saad Filho writes, 'Mass production always averages out labor' (2002, 53). Each work process makes use of concrete labor, which in turn is rendered abstract in exchange. In capitalist production, labor becomes abstract on the aggregate level, which as, John Weeks writes, 'generates a social norm that each capital must emulate, [through which] abstract labor created under the domination of each capital appears as part of society's total socialized labor' (Weeks, 2010, 33). When a commodity acquires its value from labor an inner value is introduced, which governs to some extent the exchange rate of the commodity. Alterations in supply and demand may change the price of the commodity, so it may sell below or above its value; but the value of the commodity remains constant in relation to abstract socially necessary labor required to produce it (Marx, 1976, 133). If one commodity is selling above its value, another commodity must be selling below its value; otherwise, the aggregate relation would not hold. This is, more or less the function of the law of value in capitalism. Marx did not eliminate or remove all consideration of supply and demand: hounding after changes in the price level of commodities; developing a 'theory of consumption' with detailed accounts of complementary and substitute goods were not a major focus his critique. For Marx, there had to be something more to the price of a good, this was the value given to by labor, and thus
The sphere of exchange has a relative autonomy, but it is ruled, regulated and dominated by the conditions of production and reproduction. The operation of this double relation is what Marx means by the law of value: prices as the immediate regulators of reproduction, social labour-times as the intrinsic regulators of prices and hence of reproduction (Shaikh, 1984, 44).
The need for money to oil the machine of capitalism was one the premier points of Keynes' General Theory, especially where Keynes writes that a recession could be staved off if money could be 'manufactured like a motor-car' (1964, 230-231). Marx's famous M-C-M the 'general formula for capital' is the process of capitalism, not the barter-trade of 'equivalents' as in C-M-C (1976, 250). A fact, recognized, partly for sociological, as well as economic reasons, by der junge Marx, 'The need for money is […] the true need produced by the modern economic system, and it is the only need which the latter produces' (257). The capitalist, of course, requires a certain stock of capital to even begin production, and a certain amount to remain a capitalist (254); the workers, need a little money to keep living and to purchase the goods they make: the system revolves around the need for money, not merely as a private, but as a social need, to keep things going. It is the peculiar need for life to revolve around an 'alien power' as Marx calls money and its application as exchange value, that separates his theory from the classical political economists, who have little if next to nothing to say for the use of money within capitalism. The service of money as the universal commodity allows commodities to realize their value (184) and completes the circuit of capital developed in the second volume of Das Kapital.
Wielded by Marx, the labor theory of value found a new purpose. Intended as an immanent critique of capitalism, Marx's value theory did not seek to theories on prices, but below the stock tickers to the formation of prices, behind the door of the manager and the plaques of employees of the month, to reveal a system that is in principle antagonistic. It is the central antagonism at the heart of capitalism, which arranges people in a hostile class structure, that all production is ultimately social. Due, however, to the relations of their class, people do not confront themselves as human beings, who work together to reproduce society but as things; they are mediated through class and through the exchange of money; profit for the capitalist, wages for the worker. The exploitation of labor, not necessarily an act of evil by the capitalist, is another necessary function of capitalist production. In Das Kapital, there is a clear, straightforward example that the 'older' Marx, did not leave behind the 'younger' Marx's concept of alienation, on the polarized social relations under capitalism:
men are henceforth related to each other in their social process of production in a purely atomistic way. Their own relations of production therefore assume a material shape which is independent of their control and their conscious individual actions. This situation is manifested first by the fact that the products of men's labor universally taken on the form of commodities (187).
The financial system, empowered by its ability to reproduce credit-money, strives incessantly to free itself from the constraints of commodity production. Empirically, this takes the form of an overproduction of credit that exceeds, sometimes considerably, the value of the social product. But, ultimately, a real coupling of credit and finance remains an impossible task. Since the elaborate edifice of credit and finance rests upon the monetary base defined by conditions of simple commodity production and exchange, credit-money remains fictitious if it is not validated by the product of social labor (Harvey 2006: 253).
In a system of production based on credit, any major disruption to the flow of credit is bound to trigger a crisis; '[a]t first glance, therefore, the entire crisis presents itself as simply a credit and monetary crisis' (Marx 1991 [1894]: 621). But this may be surface appearance only, as monetary panic often precedes commercial crash on the way to full-blown industrial crisis. In a commercial crisis, capital in the form of commodities loses its capacity to be transformed into money capital. But what appears as a crisis of realization is actually a crisis of overproduction whose roots lie outside the sphere of circulation. For the overproduction of commodities is symptom of overproduction of capital (overaccumulation): the formation of surplus capital relative to the opportunities for its employment. The crisis may still appear as a failure to realize production in exchange triggered by the lack of 'money.' However, what is truly lacking is 'money, not as a medium of circulation but as money' (Marx 1993 [1939]: 405); that is, money as objectified human labor, as 'value for-itself' (ibid.: 872). In crises, 'representation' will not do; money must be present as money proper, as the universal equivalent, as surplus value realized as money, for which the existing commodities can be exchanged. Financialization covers up the underlying failings of capitalist production.
III. Minsky
Hyman Minsky believed that financial instability was endogenous in the modern capitalist system in which finance plays a crucial role (Bucciarelli & Marcello, 2013). After the Second World War, rising incomes and the newly created investment culture led to a new era of finance, which gave increasingly more influence to investment banks in the financial system. The expansion of deregulation beginning in the Reagan Administration expanded the role of the financial sector in the economy even further, and transformed the way economic actors behaved within the economy. International trade agreements and the rise of the FIRE sector (Financial services, Insurance, and Real Estate) since the 1980s, has steadily increased the level of assets and income of people working in the financial industry (Deutsmann, 2012). One reason for the increasing level of financial activity in the economy is the rise of the middle class since the end of World War II. Households and firms began making more money, which led to increasing demand for goods and services, behavior which can be characterized as conspicuous consumption. This reflects what Fenzl, Brudermann, Malik, & Pelzmann (2013) call first order mass phenomenon, which emphasizes the slow endogenous changes in the collective thinking and behavior of society.
However, the real performance of firms did not match the stock prices that were seen in the financial markets. A new era of capitalism was no doubt in full effect. The transformations of economic society lead one to believe that capitalism is continually changing; which leaves the question: to what end? Keynes believed that the sole purpose of capitalism was to live, 'wisely, agreeably, and well' (Skidelsky, 2013). To him, the fierce competitiveness that embodied capitalism was merely a means to an end, which would be when people were wealthy enough to live without want. However, this assumption underestimates the insatiable desire for more that is inherent in human life. This strong desire to move socially upward and gain wealth and prestige is the driving force of innovation, which is largely believed to be the 'life blood' of capitalism (Skidelsky, 2013).
Schumpeter believed that the survival of capitalism was largely dependent upon its ability 'to general entrepreneurial individuals that are motivated by the prospect of moving socially upward' (Schumpeter, as cited by Deutschmann, 2012). Capitalism is largely dependent on innovation to continue expanding. During the last part of the 20th century, the creation mass media and marketing has enabled the financial industry to grow substantially. Innovation in the economy was moved from the real economy to the financial sector with the creation of new financial instruments, namely derivatives; which can be used for both hedging and speculation. However, the only indicators investors have to make investment decisions are the information that is available to them. Credit agencies, including S&P, Mood's, and Fitch play an increasingly important role in investor psychology. Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) were rated as investment grade, much like U.S. Treasuries. However, these credit ratings, which are used as a standard for financial valuations, are essentially just opinions of those working for the credit agencies.
The entire financial system is based off of how individuals respond to conditions of uncertainty. Thus, the way risk and uncertainty are measured plays the most vital role in the functioning of the economy. Marshall examined the nature of economic measurement in his Principles, in which he explained that economics is inexact and based solely on normal behavior tendencies that have the potential to change when unexpected circumstances arrive (Heilbroner, 1996). Keynes takes this further in chapter 12 of his General Theory, in which he examines the evolution of investing from the beginnings of capitalism to the current stage of mass speculative behavior and its consequences. Keynes argues that the economy as a whole is dependent upon a sense of satisfaction of profiting from risky business. He explains that much of investment is the result of mans appetite to take risks to gain profit, if there were no such appetite, investment would fall (Keynes, 1936).
Further, the means of investing have changed over time. The stock market enables individuals to put their money into some kind of investment and then take it back soon after; there is no real commitment. Keynes argued that there is no way to calculate market valuations, because our 'existing knowledge' is insufficient to create accurate expectations. Investors rely on short-term expectations because they are the closest to the present. The present conditions of the market are the best predictors of the near future because things will likely continue in the same order, unless something unexpected happens, or they misunderstand the true value of their positions. Investors aren't interested in the long run because it is open to a wide range of possibilities the may or may not be favorable (Keynes, 1936).
The Great Recession answers Minsky's question, 'Can it happen again?' 'It' refers to a deep economic recession or depression. Minsky believed that 'success breeds daring.' In other words, prolonged prosperity matures into financial affinity that is susceptible to instability and economic recession. Minsky's financial instability hypothesis is an extension of Keynes' General Theory. Minsky was skeptical of the financialization process in the economy, which created socially acceptable conditions for increasing levels of debt and risk. When the economy does well for a prolonged period of time, euphoria sets in, which leads to a rise in demand and inflated financial asset prices. Rising asset prices in financial markets enables firms to invest and provides a way for households to make money outside of their normal income. However, the problem arises when asset positions are financed to the maximum capacity. The rising demand, for financial assets becomes a frenzy of speculation, which amplifies the risk involved with investing. Large financial institutions play a central role in the speculation taking place in the financial markets, which gives rise to even more dangerously high levels of leverage taking place.
Financial innovation and increasing leverage ratios dramatically amplifies speculation on price movements taking place in financial markets (Minsky, 1975). This is not a problem if all the investments that are taking place are fundamentally sound. However, when the conventions for decision-making in financial markets are based on information that is unreliable or too complex to understand, it creates conditions for poor decision-making. People begin putting their money in investments they do not fully understand, which amplifies instability in the economic system. This behavior reflects what Fenzl, et al. (2013) explained as second order mass phenomenon, which is the end result of the first order mass phenomenon. As stated above, the former is the subtle changes in thinking and behavior due to favorable expectations and the latter being the collective behavior of society that is the result of these changes. Kahneman (2013) takes a similar approach in explaining mass social behavior, which can have significant effects on risky behavior in financial markets. According to Kahneman, system 1 is the fast intuitive thinking that takes place in everyday life while system 2 is the slow and more accurate thinking that takes place, which we use to make decisions. All too often, people engage in important decision making without carefully considering the consequences of their behavior. Investors finance asset positions without knowing all the risks involved. Even large financial institutions take part in this type of behavior, often leading the way of 'herd behavior' which often leads to conditions susceptible to instability.
The expansion of credit to finance misunderstood investments is largely what characterized the Great Recession, and what Minsky described as the evolution of the economy from Speculative to Ponzi financial behavior. This led to a collective agreement within the economy that it was time for contraction. Expectations of future investment had resulted in an inefficient level of the marginal efficiency of capital, a term coined by Keynes and rooted in Irvine Fisher's Theory of Interest (1930), in which he explained the value of keeping the rate of return of investment over the cost (Kregel, 1988). Minsky developed this theory further in his 'financial theory of investment,' explaining that in a modern capitalistic society, there are two price levels which drive expectations of investment. There is the price of current output and the price for capital assets. Both price levels derive the level of 'prospective returns,' which in turn determine the level of investment (Papadimitriou & Wray, 1998).
Once the recession was set in motion the next problem to solve was how to get out of it. Monetarists, such as Milton Friedman, believed that the Great Depression was the result of poor monetary policy. The Fed reduced the quantity of money at a time when it should have increased it. Friedman firmly believed that monetary aggregates should be targeted, not interest rates (Friedman, 1968). Post-Keynesians emphasized that government aid is the key to a successful recovery from depression. Monetary policy is helpful but doesn't solve depression level unemployment. The government would need to invest heavily in public works, creating government jobs and increasing effective demand to satisfy full employment. Government fiscal and monetary policy affects the propensity to consume through taxation and interest rates, which increase or decrease the volume and availability of money in the economy. Keynes theory emphasized the significant value of investment because he knew that it is what determines the level of income, the propensity to consume, and the level of employment (Dillard, 1948).
The role of money lies at the center of the debate between monetarism and post-Keynesianism. Friedman saw monetary aggregates as the sole predictor of the business cycle and therefore maintained that any interruption by the government in the economy should only focus on the amount of money circulating in the system (Freidman, 1968). Fiscal policy should play no part in the monetarist system. Post-Keynesians believed a combination of monetary and fiscal policy should be applied to the economy to stabilize business cycles. When the economy does poorly, government intervention would be able to absorb the losses that take place while the monetary authority will provide money at low interest rates to promote investment and spending (Blanchard & Johnson, 2013).
Figuring out the causes of instability in capitalism and controlling it can work as long as the perceived origins of instability are correct and the strategies to correct them are feasible.
Marx believed that the origins of economic crises lied with the imbalance of accumulation () explaining this phenomenon as the 'overaccumulation theory of economic crisis. Financialization has sped up the process of over-accumulation that favors a small group of people, specifically, the 'money managers' or owners of capital.
IV. Similarity?
There is some rather remarkable commonality between Marx's and Minsky's theories of financial and monetary crises. Common to both, crises are proposed as endogenous features to capitalism's functions. Marx and Minsky align in their theories when they explain what the purpose of capitalism really is, which is to increase. The sole purpose of work and production is to turn it into money, which function lies in the heart of capitalism. Where Marx and Minsky part is where they believe money gets its value. Marx believed money was socially constructed commodity; its value comes from the 'amount of socially necessary labor embodied in a commodity' (Ivanova, 2012, p. 60). Marx believed the faults of capitalism were beyond control, whereas Minsky believed that Capitalism could be controlled by with careful fiscal and monetary policy (Ivanova, 2012).
Like the Great Depression, the Great Recession reinforced the notion that Capitalism left to its own devices could have disastrous results. In a Minskian framework, the Great Recession was the result of financial instability that is rooted in the psychology of decision-making during good times. Minsky's premise, that good economic conditions breeds risk taking is absolutely true given the nature of the recent economic crisis. From a Marxist perspective, the global recession was the result of a much deeper problem that lies within capitalism itself. The transformation of capitalistic society into the modern financialized system has transformed social norms and thinking so that it is politically justifiable to maintain the high level of income inequality. The Marxian perspective of political economy calls for a complete restructuring of the entire economic system, which may not politically viable.
As Arrighi and Silver (1999) pointed out, financialization may cease to exist when the re-distribution of wealth can no longer be sustained. It is clear that society and therefore the economy has fundamentally transformed into a system that revolves around finance, which has tilted the scale in favor of those who have accumulated most of the wealth and whom we have to rely upon to maintain the stability of the economic system. Instability that is inherent in capitalism may be deeply rooted as Marx proposed, or it may be something that can be controlled as Minsky proposed.

V. Conclusion
Minsky's presentations of both the growth and intensive use of debt in modern market economies are indeed valuable, but it leaves the conflicts between classes, the accumulation of capital, and the global imbalances between countries aside. In particular, both Minsky's and the economists' influenced by his theory neglect of the economic surveys of other countries aside from the United States is recognized by Whalen (2005) as a fault, something Minskian economists would do well to serve. There is also the consideration that Minsky's theory, while giving considerable depth into the workings of the financial sphere of contemporary, obscures the workings of commodity production. There was marked turn of face for capitalism's usual way of doing business during the last four decades. And while Minsky was able to provide profound insights into the speculative nature of financial markets, he did not follow to the general areas of capital accumulation and commodity production. Further research, could tie up what is otherwise lacking in Minsky's theory of finance and financial crisis with the 'real' workings of the economy; in other words, something of a unified theory of how the workings of the financial sphere in modern monetary economies effect those other areas of the economy. It is here that combining Marx and Minsky could further the theoretical understanding of how modern market economies function.
References
Aglietta, Michel. The Theory of Capitalist Regulation. London: Verso.
Caballero, Ricardo J., and Arvind Krishnamurthy. 2009. Global Imbalances and Financial Fragility. The American Economic Review 99(2): 584–588.
Deutschmann, Cristoph. Limits to Financialization. European Journal of Sociology 53(3): 347–89.
Fine, Ben. 2014. Financialization from a Marxist Perspective. International Journal of Political Economy 42(2).
Harvey, David. 1986. Limits to Capital.
Keynes, John Maynard. 1962 (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.
Kiyotaki, Nobuhiro, and John Moore. 2005. Financial Deepening. Journal of the European Economic Association 3(2): 701-13.
Lapavitsas, Costas. 2013. Profiting Without Producing: How Financialization Exploits Us All. London: Verso.
——. Theorising Financialization. Work
——. 2009. 'Financialised Capitalism: Crisis and Financial Expropriation.' Historical Materialism 17(1):
——.2000. 'Money and the Analysis of Capitalism: The Significance of Commodity Money.' Review of Radical Political Economics 32(4).
Lapavitsas, Costas and Makoto Itoh. 1999. The Political Economy of Finance. London: Routledge.
Lucarelli, Bill.
——.
Luxemburg, Rosa. Capital and Accumulation. London: Routledge.
Ivanova, Maria. 2012. 'Marx, Minsky, and the Great Recession.' Review of Radical Political Economy 45(1): 59–75.
Marcuse, Herbert. 1964. One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
Marx, Karl. Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.
——.1976. Capital:
——.1980. The Gundrisse.
——.1991(1894). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. III. London: Penguin Books.
——. 1992(1984) Capital:
Minsky, Hyman. 2008 (1986). Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. New York: McGraw Hill.
——.1984 (1982). Can 'It' Happen Again?: Essays on Instability and Finance. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
——.
Nozick, Robert. 1977. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
Tomaskovic–Devey, Donald and Ken–Hou Lin. 2013. 'Financialization and U.S. Income Inequality: 1970–2008.' American Journal of Sociology 118(5): 1284-1329.
Sweezy, Paul. 1942. The Theory of Capitalist Development: Principles of Marxian Political Economy. New York, Monthly Review Press.
Sweezy, Paul and Henry Magdoff.
Smith, Adam. 2003 (1776). An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations. New York, Bantam Classics.
Weeks, John. 2010. Capital, Exploitation, and Economic Crisis. London: Routledge.
Wray, Randall L. and Dimitriou Papadi.
6