  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.
