Mr Meade's Relation, Kahn's Multiplier and the Chronology of the General Theory: Reply
反驳了Dimand关于米德乘数论述存在显著差异的观点，指出1931年和1933年版本差异不大，但1993年版本有差异，并认为剑桥马戏团在《通论》发展中的作用被夸大，但卡恩和罗宾逊的批评确实重要。
Contrary to Dimand's contention, there is no significant difference between Meade's 1931 and 1933 expositions of the multiplier. In another respect, however, there is a significant difference between these two expositions and his 1993 exposition, and this is additional evidence that the role of the 1931 Cambridge Circus proper in the development of the General Theory has been exaggerated. However, by their fruitful criticisms of subsequent drafts of the book, two members of the Circus, Richard Kahn and Joan Robinson, did subsequently play an important role in this development.