Among the young, a reverence for "received doctrine" is so rare a sentiment that it is only with reluctance I bring myself to reassert the case for iconoclasm, which case, it seems, Oakland (1969) has insufficiently appreciated. The grounds for this judgment are as follows: 1. A minor blemish perhaps,1 but one that is likely to mislead those who do not recall the sequence of the arguments presented in my paper (Mishan 1969), is Oakland's statement in his first paragraph that the validity of my procedure rests upon two (false) "assertions" whereas neither his assertion (1) nor his assertion (2) is an assertion in the sense of a postulate. His assertion (1) is in fact the conclusion of my argument in Section I. As for his assertion (2), it is an invalid inference by which he (but not I) links the conclusion of Section I with the proposal made in my Section II. His consequent misunderstanding of a crucial part of the argument appears later in his paper and is treated in paragraph 4 below. 2. Oakland makes merry with his contrived conclusion that "a unit of consumption is worth more than a unit of consumption." But, allowing for some license in expression, this apparent paradox is an unavoidable implication of the Marglin model (1963), which, as I pointed out in Section I of my paper, can be relevant only to some short-period disequilibrium. If r is 5 percent and p is 10 percent, a reduction of $100 of consumption enables a perpetual return of $10 per annum to be generated which, at the 5 percent social discount rate, has a present value of $200. Familiar allocative considerations would, indeed, require that present consumption be