On the present state of the capital controversy
回顾了战后资本争论的两个阶段，指出第一阶段通过再转换和反向资本深化现象否定了传统新古典理论，但第二阶段因误解导致分析停滞，使主流理论（如希克斯的《价值与资本》）被认为免于资本概念缺陷，进而错误地验证了不完善的前期概念。
The post-war capital controversy seems to have had two distinguishable stages. Thanks to the unambiguous phenomena of reswitching and reverse capital deepening, the first stage was conclusive in discarding from pure theory the traditional versions of neoclassical theory relying on the notion of capital as a single quantity. Subsequently, however, when the implications of those phenomena came to the centre of the controversy, together with the reformulations of the theory, which intended to do away the 'quantity of capital', several misunderstandings prevented, I shall contend, decisive progress in the analysis and we entered an inconclusive phase of the discussion. Those unclarified misunderstandings, I shall also contend, have then left space for the credence that, whatever their methodological deficiencies, the reformulations of neoclassical theory that have been introduced in the theoretical mainstream—essentially by Hicks's Value and Capital (1939)—and which have become dominant after the first stage of the capital controversy, are immune of the inconsistencies affecting previous theory on the conception of capital. This has in turn left space for a second, no less unwarranted, consequence: a feeling that since those reformulations, and in particular general intertemporal equilibrium, would confirm at the level of pure theory the essential validity of the neoclassical demand-and-supply apparatus, they would also provide some validation for the admittedly imperfect previous concepts—foremost that of a 'quantity of capital'—as workable approximations in applied work.