Starting with the first "scientific" economists such as Cantillon (1755) and Quesnay (1758) and ending with Piketty (2019), this book explores the treatment of the concept of capital in the history of accounting and economic thought. The work provides a rare juxtaposition of the reasoning, discourse and writings of accountants and economists. With regard to ‘capital’, this approach highlights the ongoing struggle between these "uncongenial twins" – as Kenneth Boulding put it – for primacy in analysing, and utilising, capitalism. But if they are certainly "uncongenial", the book also argues that it is wrong to ever classify these two disciplines as "twins" because they have taken very different paths ever since scientism came to dominate in economics and ethical and moral considerations were put to one side. This book will be of significant interest to readers to history of economic thought, critical accounting and heterodox economics.

Part One. The writings of the accountants: creators of the capital-debt concept -- Part Two. The writings of the economists on the concept of capital -- Part Three. The attacks against the concept of capital-debt.

Almost all economists, whether classical, neoclassical or Marxist, have failed in their analyses of capitalism to consider the underpinning systems of accounting. This book draws attention to this lacuna, focusing specifically on the concept of capital: a major concept that dominates all teaching and practice in both economics and management. It is argued that while for the practitioners of capitalism – in accounting and business – the capital in their accounts is a debt to be repaid (or a thing to be kept), for economists, it has been considered a means (or even a resource or an asset) intended to be worn out. This category error has led to economists failing to comprehend the true nature of capitalism. On this basis, this book proposes a new definition of capitalism that brings about considerable changes in the attitude to be had towards this economic system, in particular, the means to bring about its replacement. This book will be of significant interest to readers of political economy, history of economic thought, critical accounting and heterodox economics.

This book applies finance to the field of capital theory. While financial economics is a well-established field of study, the specific application of finance to capital theory remains unexplored. It is the first book to comprehensively study this financial application, which also includes modern financial tools such as Economic Value Added (EVA®). A financial application to the problem of the average period of production includes two discussions that unfold naturally from this application. The first one relates to the dual meaning of capital, one as a monetary fund and the other one as physical (capital) goods. The second concerns its implications for business-cycle theories. This second topic (1) provides a solid financial microeconomic foundation for business cycles and, also (2) makes it easy to compare different business-cycle theories across the average period of production dimension. By clarifying the obscure concept of average period of production, the authors make it easier to analyze the similarities with and differences from other business-cycle theories. By connecting finance with capital theory, they provide a new point of view and analysis of the long-standing problems in capital theory as well as other related topics such as the use of neoclassical production functions and theorizing about business cycles. Finally, they emphasize that the relevance of their application rests on both its policy implications and its contributions to contemporary economic theory.

Accounting for History uses the accounting interpretation of Marx’s theories of history and value to explain and defend his prediction of the inevitability of socialism as the end of history. In addition to the technological and institutional development of advanced capitalism, Bryer argues that the key necessary conditions, are that workers see through capitalist ideology, understanding that Marx’s theory of value explains why the phenomenal forms appearing in capitalist accounts are distortions of the underlying social reality, and that demystified accounting is integral to his concept of socialism on Day One. To get to Day One, the book concludes, Marx left Marxists the tasks of critical accounting.

The new edition of this classroom classic retains the organizing theme of the original text, presenting the development of thought within the context of economic history. Economic ideas are framed in terms of the spheres of production and circulation, with a critical analysis of how past theorists presented their ideas.

Many scholars discuss Marx’s Capital from many perspectives, but Accounting for Value uniquely advances and defends an ‘accounting interpretation’ of his theory of value, that he used it to explain capitalists’ accounts. It confirms and builds on the Temporal Single-System Interpretation’s refutation of the charge that Marx’s illustration of the ‘transformation from values to prices’ is inconsistent, and its defense of his ‘Law of the Tendential Fall in the Rate of Profit’. It rejects other interpretations by showing that only a ‘temporal’, ‘single-system’ interpretation is consistent with Marx’s accounting. The book shows that Marx became seriously interested in accounts from the late 1850s during an important period in the development of his critique of political economy, asking Engels for information and explanations. Examining their letters in the context of Marx’s evolving work, it argues, supports the hypothesis that discovering he could explain them with his theory of value gave him the breakthrough he needed to decide how to present his work and explains why, in 1862, he decided to change its title to Capital. Marx’s explanations of capitalist accounting, it concludes, amount to an ‘accounting theory’ that explains how individual capitalists and the capital market use what is, for many, the ‘invisible hand’ of accounting to control the production and distribution of surplus value. Marx claimed his theory of value was a work of ‘science’, a critique of political economy that would deliver a ‘theoretical blow’ from which the bourgeoisie would ‘never recover’. He failed, critics argue, because his critique depends on hypothetical entities, which we cannot directly observe, such as ‘value’ and ‘abstract labour’, ‘surplus value’, which means his theory is not open to empirical refutation. The book, however, argues that he used his theory of value to explain the ‘phenomenal forms’ of ‘profit’, ‘rate of profit’, etc., by explaining the observable accounting principles and practices capitalists use to calculate and control them, in which, as he said, we can ‘glimpse’ the determination of value by socially necessary labor time, which experience could have refuted.