Conversation so far:
What did Unger critique about econimics?
Unger's critique of economics begins with the identification of a key moment in economic history, when the analysis of production and exchange turned away from social theory.
how did he identify this key moment?
In Unger's analysis, classical economics focused on the causal relations among social activities, which were connected with the production and distribution of wealth.
What else does the analysis say?
Classical economists asked questions about the true basis of value, activities that contributed to national wealth, systems of rights, or about the forms of government under which people grow rich.
Who agreed with Unger about his criticism?
Unger's critique of Marginalism begins with Walras' equilibrium theory, which attempted to achieve a certainty of economic analysis by putting aside normative controversies.
Did he write any papers about his critique of economics?
Unger finds three weaknesses that crippled the theory: foremost, the theory claimed that equilibrium would be spontaneously generated in a market economy.
Are there any other interesting aspects about this article?
the discipline is always self-referential and theoretical.
Furthermore, the lack of a normative view of the world curtails the ability to propose anything more than a policy prescription.
When did he start talking about his criticisms?
For Unger, this moment in the history of economics robbed it of any analytical or practical value.

Question: Why did it rob him of value?
Self-contained rewrite: Why did the key moment rob Unger of value?