Full text: Brief von Michał Kalecki an Josef Steindl

Al. I Armii W.P. 11 m. 26 
Warsaw, 20 Febr. 196? 
Dear Steindl, 
Thank you for your letter which crossed mine sent through 
Sachs. Since is the increment of T during the year 
a! r 
considered it does not differ much from , where Ai_ 
is the increment over the period . In fact all the 
argument on investment decisions could be developed for a small 
period At rather than for a year and. then in all the 
equations would be replaced by 
Thus I resorted to A.J_ over an annual period only for the 
sake of simplicity / as in my preceding paper Si Observations on the 
Theory.of Growth” in Economic Journal /. I do not think that this 
simplification interferes with the generation of the cycle. 
My present theory of investment decisions differs nevertheless 
substantially from the previous one for different reasons. I 
assume now a much more definite pattern of the behaviour of the 
entrepreneur which permits to s#how that a. a 1 .1 conduct the 
argument only in terms of gross saving and gross investment and 
I introduce explicitly the influence of the increase of producti 
vity due to technical progress rather than using from the outset 
the concept of depreciation and net investment /sections 4 and 5/. 
Finally I explain the additional effect of innovations which is 
based on a sort of ’’doublecounting” by the entrepreneurs /section 
6/. The latter is important because it clarifies the problem 
raised by Mrs Robinson that all the effects of innovations are 
accounted for by depreciation. 
; ,achs told me that you are quite well but that sfpu do not

Note to user

Dear user,

In response to current developments in the web technology used by the Goobi viewer, the software no longer supports your browser.

Please use one of the following browsers to display this page correctly.

Thank you.