DISCUSSION 
MAHALANOBIS 
I am tremendously interested in what I have heard. It is extre- 
mely exciting to me, if I have understood the general outlook of the 
paper. I am not an economist and have a very superficial knowledge 
pf marginal analysis and other classical approaches. I should like 
‘0 check my impressions by asking some questions to see whether I 
nave understood the paper correctly. I am not quite clear about 
« equilibrium ». The objective is full employment of labour, capital 
and, I take it, also of all natural resources. How would natural 
resources come into the picture? I am not quite clear about the 
mplication of the word « equilibrium » in this connexion. The 
anderdeveloped countries have a problem of growth; the equilibrium 
approach appears to me to be essentially static, because if any func- 
tion of time is introduced which in some way can be calculated 
or in some way estimated, that is, of absorbing the time-dimension 
50 to say, then the approach would still remain static. That is, a 
mere formal inclusion of time does not make the system dynamic; 
many so-called dynamic models seem to me to be essentially static. 
The implication of the word « equilibrium » in this context is not 
lear. In any case, Dr. Pasinetti asked whether any one was inte- 
ested in such questions; I could very clearly and emphatically de- 
clare that there is one person around this table who is. 
10] Pasinetti - pag. 119