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.