i«1 
June 6, 1986 
Comment on Professor Kurz’s Paper 
By J.Steindl 
H » 
Prof.Kurz, starting from a Ricardian position, endeavours 
to refute the idea that the pace of accumulation determines 
the pro fit rate. This endeavour is perhaps from the 
beginning the fruit of a misunderstanding. A theory which— 
injspite of the context in which it was presented by 
|oan Robinson - is essentially dynamic in character is, 
one suspects, being measured and judged on the basis of 
an essentially static position of long term equilibrium 
( it was Sraffa who presented it as essentially static ). 
There is hardly any common ground and no bridge ("traverse") 
between two theories dealing with different problems. 
It should be noted at the outset that the theory in 
question was presented by Joan Robinson and Nicholas 
Kaldor, the only authors considered by Prof.Kurz, 
on a high level of abstraction, without explanation of 
how the adjustment actually works and leaving it somewhat 
uncertain how far the arguments can actually be applied 
to the historical process of accumulation. 
Prof Kurz chooses Kaldor as the text for his criticism (p.17). 
He is on rather firm ground when he questions the role 
which the full employment assumption plays in Kaldors 
presentation. One of Kaldors contentions is that a 
flexible profit margin will make it possible for the 
warranted rate of growth to adjust to the natural rate 
of growth so that a smooth growth rate with full employment 
will be realised.