Vienna, 7th Dec.1976 
Dear Dr '■'omulka, 
W orry to delay my answer. It seems to me there can he no 
objection to your way of writing the equation because it is only 
in notation different from Kalecki’s equation in Th Ec Dyn. 
You choose the Lag between saving SHI pr fit and investment as 
uiit of time, while in Kalecki's general f^rmulti n y>ur h 
is the time unit and the above lag is called 0 The 1962 paper 
is a pecial case with <* =1 
It is intuitively clear that the expl sive oha*acter of 
the diff diff.equati n will be shared by the difference g|U|t£oij v .lue A 
provided the lag is small en ugh If y-u have found the lixli this 
is certainly interesting f r the interpretatio f Kaleclci. 
He assumes 0 t o be between one and one half years and in his 
statistical calculation ( p 111,Table 20 ) the time unit (your h) 
seems to be one year. That wuld put him in the safe zone, 
f 
if you are right in sx giving h=*l/2 as the critical value f h. 
nevertheless your results are valuable in the context. 
Yours,