Sraffa elaborated on the logical inconsistencies of Hayek's argument, especially concerning the effect of inflation-induced "forced savings" on the capital sector and about the definition of a "natural" interest rate in a growing economy.
[2] Sraffa criticizes Hayek's argument, pointing out that it fails to consider certain features specific to a monetary economy, where money serves as a means of payment, unit of measurement in contracts, and store of value.
Inflation and monetary policy impact income distribution, and in the presence of debts, money contracts, wage agreements, and rigid prices, the accumulation of capital through forced saving may not be economically destroyed.
Glasner and Zimmerman highlights that Keynes's analysis of own rates in Chapter 17 of the General Theory provided the analytical tools that Hayek could have used to refute Sraffa's claims of incoherence by showing the tendency for real returns to equalize across assets.
Glasner and Zimmerman argues this ineffectual response was a missed opportunity, as a better grasp of Keynes's Chapter 17 could have shown the coherence of Hayek's natural rate idea.