May 16,1986. 
Dear Sandro, 
Many Thanks for sending me your manuscript on Neo-Ricardianism 
and Distribution in which you successfully managed to 
sew tohether the two parts of your split personality! 
I am entirely happy with your solution of starting from a 
historically given initial condition and analysing the 
subsequent changes. 
Comment: You are generally very clear the only passage which 
gives me difficulties is on p. 26. Might it not help if you 
give examples from economics for the "different analytical 
levels" ( would micro - macro be an example ? Different 
levels of abstraction are included in your concept, but they 
are presumably not the only thing ) Also later when you 
speak about abusive or wrong appliclation of the levels 
of analysis you might give a concrete example. 
Perhaps slight verbal difficulties are on p.10 top. 
The "forces affecting income distribution" are they the 
qusi exogenous forces which you need to determine the distribution? 
But do they have nothing to do with technology etc? 
And the relationship between prices and distributive variables 
sounds as if it had something to do with the above. In a word, 
don't you put it in too abstract terms? 
Less important: Your dismissal of the"post-Keynesian" distribution 
is perhaps too cavalier. You do not consider that borrowing 
as a ration of investment cannot be increased above a certain 
level, ajcy one half or so. and that makes the relation between 
investment and profits less loose than you make it out to be.