Our article on ‘The Sraffian supermultiplier and cycles’ provides

evidence that aggregate investment in the post-war US leads the

cycle. Summa, Petrini and Texeira’s reply shows that only

residential investment leads, whereas business investment lags the

cycle. Their results could be interpreted to support supermultiplier

theory. In this rejoinder, we argue that key problems and questions

remain, chief among them excessively strong assumptions.

Residential investment cannot plausibly be seen as autonomous,

and business investment cannot plausibly be seen as fully induced.