Daniele Besomi wrote:
>The discussion now starts to become tricky. As new names are added, 
>the problem of understanding what exactly these people were saying, 
>and what therefore was their role in the formulation of the 
>principle, becomes more and more difficult.
>
>Tentatively I would say that they were all trying to explain the 
>same observed fact, that is, that the fluctuations of investment are 
>far larger than fluctuations of consumption. But premises, 
>approaches and solutions were not exactly the same. One nowadays, 
>with the benefit of historical hindsight,  thinks of the 
>acceleration principle roughly as follows: starting from the premise 
>that, given the technique and the degree of utilization of capital, 
>the ratio of capital to consumption is constant, net investment is 
>undertaken only to face an increased demand for consumption goods. 
>(I hope this answers Pat's request).


Well, this is closer. Except it is still not exactly clear what the 
starting point is. How can new investment be undertaken without new 
money, new resources, or a cutback in existing spending on 
non-investment. Can an increase in investment, by itself, really be a 
starting point in economic theory?

Or perhaps your point is that there is no definite starting point. If 
so, I ask the question that I seem to ask a lot on this list. Are you 
interested in a word (or phrase) or are you interested in an economic concept.

If the latter, it seems wise to state it clearly at the outset. Then, 
perhaps you could narrow down the list of real contributors.

Pat Gunning