Paul Samuelson has listed three fiftieth anniversaries that are marked by this conference; let me add that it also marks the delayed tenth anniversary of a similar argument between Paul and myself about the relation between Kahn's 1931 multiplier article and the General Theory, which took place at a 1975 conference at the University of Western Ontario. But before turning to that issue – which is the main one that will concern me in this discussion – let me make a few remarks about some other points in Paul's paper.

First, I am glad that Paul and I are essentially in agreement about the relation of the Stockholm School to the General Theory (see my Anticipations of the General Theory?, Chapter 2).

Second, Paul seems to regard the gestalt approach to the history of thought as being in contrast to my emphasis on the importance of textual evidence. I see no such contrast. On the contrary, I consider my principle of identifying the contribution of an economist with the central message of his writings, and disregarding things he said in passing and to which he clearly did not attach much importance at the time, as being precisely an application of the gestalt approach. Ohlin's 1933 article is a good example of this: for as I point out in my Anticipations of the General Theory?