for a stationary state. Since the economy does not conform to this condition one would suspect that there is indeed no reason why cross section and time series should give the same results. Again,more generally, economists have been inclined to interpret regressions based on cross section data as expressions of economic relations, possibly of cause and effect. These interpretations seem to neglect that the data in question reflect conditions belonging to different periods of time. Perhaps this mety be understood more easily if one were to think of the age distribution of a population which evidently depends on fertility and morbidity over a series of years past. Moreover,simple regressions reflect, or are influenced, by more than one economic relation. As I show in the last of the following papers the regression income-wealth reflects influences from one to the other,in both directions.Generally speaking, the fact that our economy has grown and has been subject to all kinds of chops and changes must distort more or less the pattern of the cross section data. I dwell on this subject because it forms the recurrent theme of the following papers. They purport to show the influence which the past has wrought on the present, and how past growth is expressed in the patterns and formations of the present which bear the imprints of events gone by. As I discovered ex post I -sun in a sense following the philosophy of Rene Thom with his stress on morphology,on the study of forms and their evolution. My studies suggest that past growth is closely linked to a certain pattern of statistical distribution,namely the Pareto distribution. In a stationary economy,so at least one of my