I am going to restrict myself to the doctrinal aspects of Clower's paper, and from that viewpoint I can be very brief. In this paper Clower says that the question of the interpretation of Keynes and Ohlin “might be approached directly through detailed exegesis of textual evidence” – but chooses not to do so, and accordingly presents an interpretation that is practically devoid of references to their writings. I, on the other hand, do not understand how doctrinal history can be approached in any other way. In any event, I can find no textual evidence either in Keynes or in Ohlin to support Clower's interpretations of their respective positions.

Insofar as Keynes is concerned, I have elsewhere and at length presented my documented interpretation of the General Theory (Patinkin, 1976, 1982), and it would not be feasible to repeat all that here. Let me note, however, that Clower misrepresents my exposition when he quotes me as saying that my presentation of Keynes's theory of effective demand in terms of the 45°-cross diagram “does not exactly accord with the presentation in Chapter 3 of the General Theory” – and ends the quotation at that point. For that sentence goes on to say that this diagram nevertheless “captures its essence” (Patinkin, 1982, p. 9, fn. 7).

It is, of course, true that this diagram does not appear in the General Theory. But little significance can be attached to this fact per se for the simple reason that, with one exception, Keynes did not use analytical diagrams in any of his writings.