Full text: Comment on Professor Kurz's Paper

3 
itself to the growth rate of capacity on the right hand 
side of the equation. 
Prof Kurz then turns to his own view of the problem. 
At the outset he sounds terribly orthodox: "...by definition 
accumulation can have no impact on normal distribution" 
(p.24).But he goes furtheVand does not even approve of 
Prof.Ciccone's position that it is the change in utilisation 
which brings about the adjustment of ( "realised") profits 
to the rate of accumulation in the long run ( as it 
undoubted does in the short run). He argues that an increase 
in the rate of accumulation will lead to a rate of profit 
above normal and a real wage rate below normal, but 
"workers will eventually be successful in re-establishing 
the normal level of real wages"( p.24 )• How they will 
do it he does not say ( it would not be obvious in a 
closed system, at any rate ). In the end Prof Kurz rather 
darkly alludes to the theory that the problem of increasing 
rate of accumulation would solve itself by means of the 
increased output capacity which it would bring about in 
due course ( p.24/25 ). He seems to forget that the 
increased output capacity materialises only after the 
investment has been completed, that is with a considerable 
time lag and that saving is necessary precisely to bridge 
this gap. If the additional capacity could be created 
simultaneously with the spending on the investment goods 
there would be not limit to accumulation at all, and we 
could turn the whole of the third world into an enormous 
Manhattan or Hongkong in no time! 
In his final paragraph Prof.Kurz makes a remarkable step 
in a direction where, God knows, we might finally meet. 
He considers the question whether" the normal position of 
th
	        

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.