3 
in opposite directions ( why not? ) and wonders why Kalecki was so 
interested in the share of wages ( and who is not? ).Since he 
believed not without reason that this share was strongly 
influenced by the pricing of the products Kalecki had to conclude 
that it would act as a constraint on the real wage. What is there 
to puzzle about? 
I return now to the good advice concerning input-output 
techniques. It should certainly not be dismissed out of hand, but 
we have to be very careful about it because there are a number of 
... . . 
difficulties involved in this case. To start with, commodities are 
r*'. 
,S 
very ill defined. So are industries, which are almost all 
multiproduct and often there is joint production. The beautifully 
clean theory threatens to be mired up in a morassJ In fact, an 
input output matrix (also called technology matrix ) refers to 
technical processes; institutions - firms and industries - do not 
% 1> 
easily find a place there. 
tTM £*,, y 
O-Vv IA.J 
Moreover, the firms in one and the same industry do not have a 
uniform mark up, not according to Kalecki and not according to 
fact. From some points of view, including my own, these 
ri 
differences are very important. I think the complications which 
arise here are formidable, to say the very least. 
One more point. Sraffa's system of prices is always in the 
background in this discussion, even if he is not mentioned. Now 
what gives his system cohesion and makes it rich in results is the 
uniform rate of profit. We can have nothing like that in the case 
of Kalecki: The problem here is to show how the general surplus is 
unequally distributed in accordance with the different degree of 
market power which rules via the prices over the distribution. I 
^ JW ~ 
0 } 
, - , / 
do K. cC*Vt~- Vi"®**, Uf << *+ v