Schwarzhorngasse 10/17 
A- W050 Wien 
Jan 8, 1980 
Dear Amit, 
Many thanks fir your letter. With regard to my personal 
in*ome distribution p n per to which you refer: I take it that you 
have received the new, although fragmentary version vri&ich I sent 
ypu in May or June, but since you don’ t mention it explicitly 
I am still not completely sure. 
My interest in the new Cambri ge school arises 
from an attempt to show that the ( assumed ) increase in the 
personal savings ratio/ warrants budget deficits if one can not 
bring the business sector to increase its indebtedness and if 
there is no surplus in the foreign balance. The CambridgesEhool 
by integrating business and households into one private sector 
obscures the special problems of household savings. But its 
preoccupation with the various parts of saving and investment 
in an open system ( which are interacting, but none of which 
tends to any automatic balance) - budget deficit, foreign balance etc- 
is justified by the importance of these questions, although 
they mess it up somewhat. 
I do knwo the Eatwell, darling etc paper, but 
my ideas are following a different path. $ think the reduction in 
productivity growth rate in the seventies in most industrial countries 
is due to reduced growth and/or / unemployment. The reduced productivity 
growth in turn is a most essential part in the amrwer to the 
question why inflation has been accelerating in the seventies. In 
other word?, the other factors like material prices, increasing 
taxation of wage etc might have been managed without such spectacular 
accerleration of inflation. 
I shall pass on your message to Kazhik. 
I do hope that you are feeling well and happy. I guess you 
have alot of work! 
With my best wishes 
Yours,