A possible approach Let us take it that the trend is created by the emergence of new techniques which lead to innovative investment of the pioneers. Thus the series of such pioneering investments will be a relevant observation for the explanation of the trend. In the wake of each pioneer comes the diffusion of the new methods which accounts for the bulk of investment and which depends very much on economic factors as far as the timing and the speed of the diffusion is concerned. Since the technical progress leads to increasing productivity it must involve an increase in real wages ( if there is i not to be a crises which blocks the diffusion). The consequence is that certain plder methods will become unrenumerative and the plant and the firms which own them will be driven out of the market. Thus I have to insist on my original point ( in polemics with Kalecki ) that the (premature ) destruction of capcaity is an element which plays a role in the trend ( it works against the creation of overcapacity ). However I do now agree with Kalecki that the more important factor is the continuing creation of new purchasing power by new innovations. I feel however that we need to have a mechanism which ensures that there is no’H excess capacity arising in order satisfactorily to explain the trend. I see such a mechanism in the competitive process w^hich I described in Maturity and Stagnation. The pressure of competition by new entrants 0/ and innovators leds to reduction of profit margins to such a level as will be compatible with a normal or aatisfactory utilisation of capacity.