/to*** h'-'W 
Comment on Prof.Pivetti 1 s paper by J.Steindl 
Professor Pivetti's paper is admirably suited to bring 
into focus the differences which exist among us 
between various lines of thinking ( tentatively identified 
as Neo-Ricardian as against Post-Keynesian or Kaleckian). 
To go to the heart of the matter, these differences concern 
the role which we attribute to the actual importance of 
monopoly elements in our 20th century society. A further 
difference is the question whether we can use equilibrium 
relations to draw conclusions about the response of 
the economic system to changes imposed on it. 
In certain other respects ideas from the various strands 
of thought seem to overlap. That profit rate, and not as 
Marx and the classics wanted, the real wage, is subject 
to prior determination and the share of the other side - wage 
is left as a residual - the inversion of Marx as it were - 
is shared also by post-keynesian writers . It is only 
when we ask what determines the profit rate that the 
opinions divide. But again, that the determination should 
come from the interest is an opinion found in Keynes, 
only, again, the mechanism of the influence is different: 
With Keynes the influence would come about in so far 
as a discrepancy between profit and interest would act 
on investment. How does this influence of interest on profit 
work according to Prof.Pivetti? 
He refers to the equilibrium system of prices of production 
based on normal cost and a uniform rate of profit,equal to 
interest •