’’’""‘‘V* 
/ 
£/ 
to believe in a long term posive feed-back effect of 
accumulation ("slowly changing function of time determined 
by past economic, social and technological developments" p175 ) 
He merely regarded these relations as too complicated to be^f 
included di r-eo^-ly explicitly in the endogenous mechanism. 
I think, however, that one should try to do it. Don't expect it 
of me y fti * 
To prevent misunderstandings I think the 1968 paper is very 
important, even more perhapi for the business cyole theory 
than for the trend. 
5. I don't see a crisis of Keynesian or Kaleckian e conomics. 
l'here is perhaps a crises of a^ policy concept, of the growth 
optimism represented for example by a oWow. A high rate of growth 
apparently solved the social problems and prevented the 
return of the conditions of the 193o'ies. The difference between 
Harrod^ warranted rate of growth and the actual one was eliminated 
by increasing the latter. The growth dnd high employment 
brought very difficult problems: Migrations ( the n|gros in U.S., 
the foreign workers in ^urope), Urbanisation, energy and 
raw materials, the environment, demands by the workers for 
participation and generally increased pressure from below, 
the unrest of the intellectuals and students, and inflation. 
JtxxxaxiansKBiHeHKK of all that , the powers that be in U.S. have 
turned their backs on growth and begun to practice a conscious 
policy of stagnation, tn Germany they have apparently their 
emulators. But here, may be , the reduction of the growth rate 
enforced V the decreasing infl^D of foreign workers has also 
been a source of difficulties. The chances are that we are in for 
a new era of stagnation. 
Naturally neither Kalecki nor Keynes could deal in detail 
with problems before they had in fact arisen. But the direct 
causes of unemployment and stagnation are to-day just the same asbeford 
Yours 
With kind regards 
^ru. Y