Vienna, 7th Dec.1976
Dear Dr '■'omulka,
W orry to delay my answer. It seems to me there can he no
objection to your way of writing the equation because it is only
in notation different from Kalecki’s equation in Th Ec Dyn.
You choose the Lag between saving SHI pr fit and investment as
uiit of time, while in Kalecki's general f^rmulti n y>ur h
is the time unit and the above lag is called 0 The 1962 paper
is a pecial case with <* =1
It is intuitively clear that the expl sive oha*acter of
the diff diff.equati n will be shared by the difference g|U|t£oij v .lue A
provided the lag is small en ugh If y-u have found the lixli this
is certainly interesting f r the interpretatio f Kaleclci.
He assumes 0 t o be between one and one half years and in his
statistical calculation ( p 111,Table 20 ) the time unit (your h)
seems to be one year. That wuld put him in the safe zone,
f
if you are right in sx giving h=*l/2 as the critical value f h.
nevertheless your results are valuable in the context.
Yours,