• Mercantilist economics lacked theoretical foundation and epistemological stringency. Even eminent Marxist economic historians spoke about the theoretische Armseligkeit des Kameralismus (here they shared common ground with the liberal interpretation), or ‘Mercantilism in the service of the feudal state’ – ‘Merkantilismus des deutschen Zwergstaates.’ There was no Cameralist thinker, as the saying went in the Communist interpretation of the history of political economy, who would have matched the analytical level and rigour of the contemporary English Mercantilists. German theory remained as primitive and backword as the German economy throughout 1600–1900, it was said. Both interpretations can be challenged on the basis of more recent research.

• It was likewise often maintained that Mercantilism/Cameralism represented no ‘closed’ or ‘unified’ theory (usually taken to mean a theory that explains everything, that is, all types of possible economic fields and constellations, out of itself, such as Marxism or Keynesian economics).

• Perhaps the gravest of all charges may be the accusation that Cameralism (in the same way as Mercantilism) lacked the potential to raise general economic welfare in a Pareto-optimal way if applied as an economic policy – as though such characteristics would either be necessary or represent conditiones sine qua non, in a sense of being ultimately relevant, for determining how good or useful one particular theory really is in terms of improving the economic fate of mankind.