1050 Wien, Schwarzhomgasse 10/17 
Jan.24, 1982. 
ear Krishna, 
I applogize for taking so lang to answer, hut I have been 
working on a few papers and I am very slow nowadays. 
You have written a very beautiful paper on a forbiddingly 
difficult subject. My comments almost entirely refer not to 
your exposition but to its subject - the discussion round Keynes. 
It will not be a secret to you that I have a f eling of deep 
alienation with regard to this discussion. In fact, I can't make 
head and tails of it. Let me mention throe fairly general points* 
1. The discussion at Trieste and what they referred to, are 
almost exclusively turning on Keynes a3 if this were a father figure 
which holds pepple in his grips. If the matter, the problems are 
of interest in the first place, and not the appreciation of depreciation 
of a particular life work, then you would think it natural that 
Kalecki would be included euqually, having the same results as heh;.d 
broadly speaking but different assumptions ( distribution theory! ) 
and a much less ambiguous and more comprehensive system. Equally, 
Keynes' friends Joan R., Kahn al so Harrod could just as well 
I 
contribute to an understanding of what is behind this theory. 
2. What is long run? You come to it fairly late in your paper, on 
p 27 -29. It Appears that it is steady state growth. Strictly 
speaking you jean only compare two such growth systems, which have 
gone on for a very |lo g time and Eire continuing forever! But I 
could hardly jibe too strict about i^t, since Harrod has used the 
method or concept oijf steadiy state growth and 3 have I mylelf in 
i 
Maturity etc. The o! ; ppis±te to it would be process analysis which 
pr ceeds from peri >d to period, and which could also be applied to 
the long run Obvi imsly the steady gr owth is a very abstract concept 
and its basis must Ibe somewhat speculative, certainly much more than 
short run pr cess <|malysis which can more plausibly appeal to facts. 
^ You refer t > peisrmanent characteristics of the system, but are there 
any since the syst em continuously changes? The permanent features are 
either very general ( there is a surplus, but how much? ) or they 
reflect an ideology. 
5. I comldtely fafll to understand how saving which is ( admittedly, 
I suppose) adjusted to investment via the GDP, can be equalised to 
investment (or rarthor, the other way round) by the rate of interest. 
I seems that different concept of savings must be used here (ex ante?)