James Ahiakpor writes: "I would suggest that Gaffney read carefully Clark's 1890s criticism of Bohm-Bawerk's criticism of classical capital theory of interest and Knight's 1930s debates with F.A. Hayek over the concept of capital again. He would find that it was Bohm-Bawerk's and Hayek's fixation on "capital" to mean capital goods only that drew the criticisms. The classics and their "faithful" followers understood capital in the theory of interest as funds, not capital goods. And as Knight pointed out to Hayek, "capital" as "funds" comes out of savings from income, it does not take time to create as capital goods do. The problem was one of language, which the Austrians needed to make a greater effort to understand, as the speakers of that language intended it. " I find in Frank Knight the statement that in a "going concern" the lapse of time between input and output is eliminated because input and output are simultaneous. That is like saying college students are educated instantly when the outflow of graduates equals the inflow of new freshmen. It indicates to me (along with other evidence) that Knight did not understand much about inventory management and cash flow or the corresponding financial truths, or integral calculus either for that matter. I am afraid he got carried away by the exuberance of his own verbosity and lost track of how capital as a platonic fund must relate to capital actually stored in physical or mental or other such real form. Accordingly, Lionel Robbins could write in his 1934 Introduction to Wicksell's Lectures, "From 1870-1920, "much of the economics was . an economic theory of acapitalistic production. Considerations of capital theory proper . simply disappear from the picture" (Robbins, 1934)". Wicksell in his "grape-juice model" had no problem keeping the inventory from vanishing in a going concern, he just inverted the order of integration. Tragically, the profession gradually followed Knight and Stigler and discarded Wicksell, the Swedish Austrian, along with the Austrian Austrians. I am not aware whether the Austrian Austrians ever caught up with Wicksell, but if they did I hope someone will spread the word. When Keynes rushed into the vacuum left by the acapitalistic theories of Clark and Knight he faced an analytically analogous problem with his multiplier, dragging out over time. So he, or one of his expositors (I do not know which, but someone out there probably does), came up with the instantaneous or "vertical" multiplier. The squabbling over this lasted 15 years or so, as I recall, until people got the idea. Minds were so locked into the timeless or instantaneous thinking of Clark and Knight, it was hard to readjust. Graduate students had to suffer through all this, hoping for light at the end of the tunnel and wondering if the agony was worth it. Auguste Comte said that theories deal either with relations of sequence, or of coexistence. Wicksell's grape-juice model, like the vertical multiplier, deftly converted a relation of sequence into the corresponding one of coexistence. May we all learn from it, and flee from the confusions sown by Clark, Knight and Stigler. Mason Gaffney