060 FONTIFICIAE ACADEMIAE SCIENTIARVM SCRIPTA VARIA - 
~ 
is 0.2 instead of 1 as'is implicitly assumed in equation 2 of LEon- 
IIEF’s paper. In no case it is possible to conclude that there is 
some proportionality between R and C which would mean B equal 
to unity. 
Now, in the Leontief calculations the hypothesis that real national 
mcome tends to be proportional to real national capital plays a fun- 
damental role. If this hypothesis were abandoned, the results would 
be completely different. 
My argument is absolutely the same as yesterday. A given pro- 
perty can appear to be reasonable without being right. I repeat 
again. From an economic point of view, my model may be right 
or wrong, this is as may be, but it is mathematically coherent. And 
while it shows an approximate proportionality between income and 
capital, nevertheless there is at the same time a maximum for real 
national income whatever the value of real capital. 
The political impact of the LEONTIEF paper, were its results 
correct, would be of very great importance. The conclusion would be 
that the West should very substantially increase its aid in capital. 
My convinction is that this increase would have a much lesser effect 
than that predicted by the LEONTIEF paper because the more im- 
portant factor is not capital but, in my opinion, technological 
education. 
Certainly, if we accepted a production function such as the Dou- 
glas production function, which it seems very reasonable to accept, 
at least as a first approximation, the result would be that the paper 
would predict a much lesser effect. Thank vou. 
LEONTIEF 
I think I fully understand Prof. ALLAIS’ objection. To meet it 
let me restate my position in respect to the point raised bv him in 
the following way: 
The stock of capital employed in productive process represents a 
necessary but not a sufficient condition for attaining the level of 
13] Leontief - pag.. 22