AbstractThis rejoinder is a rebuttal of the claims made by Dávila‐Fernández, Oreiro, and Punzo (in press) in their comment on Lavoie (). All three points that they make are mistaken: I did not pretend that the introduction of autonomous noncapacity expenditures would on its own allow the neo‐Kaleckian growth model to converge toward the normal rate of capacity utilization; the ‘Keynesian’ message is not eliminated when investment expenditures are essentially induced in a neo‐Kaleckian model; and the equations that they provide to endogenize the normal rate of capacity utilization are meaningless.