Full text: Steedman versus Kalecki

doubt very much whether input-output techniques will be very 
suitable for this purpose. 
Let me now turn to a separate issue raised by Steedman^, the role 
of fixed capital, and the long run. He blames Kalecki for not 
taking into account depreciation, although he apparently 
recognises what a problematic concept that is ( I remember a 
lecture by Leontiew in which he said that depreciation is a 
concept used by the tax administration, it is not an economic 
concept at all ). But in so far as the business man takes into 
account depreciation he must do so before he invests, afterwards 
it is too late: It will depend on the market whether he will cover 
it. This considerable difference between fixed capital and other 
inputs is not appreciated by SteedmanX- But he is perfectly right 
in thinking that there is reason for going beyond Kalecki in 
connection with overheads and with the long run, - perhaps we 
should better say in connection with structural changes which are 
usually slow but which can also occur quickly as in the case of 
the oil shock. I give two examples. 
Overheads have apparently increased substantially in the post war 
decades (see the material given in Cowlings Monopoly Capitalism ) 
and the mark up has increased correspondingly. One might argue, of 
course, in the spirit of Baran-Sweezy, that the monopoly power had 
increased but the large concerns have used the potential surplus 
in order to spend on research, on sales cost etc with the aim of 
discouraging potential new entrants. I think, however, that we 
recognise thatthe mark up contains a basic element 
determined by the hnjount of overheads which have to be covered if 
the business is to survive for more than a short time. 

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.