MEMORANDUM

As the candidate remarks, this impossibility would happen the earlier the
stronger the productivity increase would have been. Yes, it can easily be shown that
in his numerical example a doubling of the productivity of the first good will
already at the end of the following period lead to a standstill of the entire
production process. This would mean that when an economic resource starts to
flow in sufficient magnitude it must lead to paralysis of the economy. The
abstrusity of such a conception is close at hand. It is obviously a flight of fancy and
the Leontievian “pendular movement” is no less so: it is admittedly correctly
derived logically and arithmetically, however, under assumption that strikes reality
in the face: in the derivation it is assumed that the economy rather collapses than
leaving a good unutilized, and that the productivity coefficients are under all
circumstances maintained.
Unrealistic is also the treatment the candidate offers of the problem of
exchange. His criticism of Irving Fisher’s contraposition of capital and income is
largely misguided. His “third” concept of the velocity of money is untenable. In
general it must be stated that his remarks are in part incomprehensible. The
notation he makes use of is sometimes unusual and inappropriate.”
Bortkiewicz described and commented the content of the dissertation with a slight
ironic distance. He was hardly been convinced about the benefits of the system developed
by Leontief. He acknowledged the effort and the ingenuity demonstrated by Leontief in
the concluding paragraph.
Although the second part of the work may have some sensitive formal shortcomings
and materially little to offer as the results of the theoretical investigation at best
stand in a remote relation to reality, but as a specimen of scientific aptitude and the
erudition of the author this part must not be underestimated. He proceeds
throughout in correct style, mostly correct reasoning and always independent,
although not without strange ideas whether in an explicit position, or whether in
mere suggestions to take into account.
In my assessment the dissertation deserves to be marked as opus laudabile.”
10 January 1928 signed L. v. Bortkiewicz
Bortkiewicz’ evaluation and marking was cosigned by Sombart with a single
minimalistic remark that he accepted the mark (“Mit dem Prädikat einverstanden”).
At this stage only the oral exam (Promotionsprüfung) remained. It was decided to take
place on 1 March 1928. The Promotionsprüfung was a thorough test, conducted as an oral
exam over one day on 1 March 1928 with four examiners, three of them his teachers
Bortkiewicz, Sombart, and Breysig, The fourth examiner was Köhler, a philosopher. All
37