5 
example: It is recognised, I think, that in consequence of the oil 
shock the profits of the oil using industries would have increased 
enormously if the mark up had been unchanged.^It is therefore 
necessary to recognise that the mark up which we usually assume to 
be constant in the short run will not be constant in face of 
strong structural changes. This certainly complicates matters in 
so far as we have to be careful in interpreting the ratio of 
proceeds to prime cost when long term or also sudden structural 
changes come into play. I have suggested that in those cases the 
break even point may be a better indicator of monopoly or market 
power ( Steindl 1990 ). ^ _.—.— 
In a number of cases I see no reason to contradict Steedman^. He 
is right on vertical integration (which Kalecki never used in the 
context of mark up pricing ). There is no reason to quarrel with 
him about his general statements on the interrelations of 
industries. He is also right when he blames dynamic economists for 
having to say so little about the time lags which play of course 
an essential role in economic dynamics. The trouble is of course 
that there are no data, but it may well be argued that the supply 
of data depends also on the interest in them shown by economists - 
i. Jito-W- t * t. '• ~ I* 
as in the case of the national accounts. In so far as Steedmanjfis < 
AiAfyt, J * 
argument is a teaser one could of course up a counter teaser 
such as: When SteedmanVi is faced with a certain empirically given 
industrial structure how does he know whether it is in equilibrium 
or whether owing to not yet obtained adjustment there is a 
1 - I r~\ 
potential for change in it, and how much? 
Moreover, I also agree with him very much when he deplores that 
the followers of Kalecki have not done more to develop his theory, 
to follow up the great stimulus he has given. But I would not