Our comment to Pasinetti’s fourth point starts from Robinson’s distinction between ‘logical’ and ‘historical’ time and from the critique based on that distinction that she addressed to both the neoclassical and the classical theory of value and distribution. We find that there are two sides to Robinson’s critique: one by which that critique can legitimately be addressed to both theories, but that should be rejected; and the other, that with one reservation should be accepted but that has to do with the specific nature of the neoclassical theory inasmuch as this theory is based on demand and supply curves. Moving to further questions with a ‘chronological’ dimension, we argue that the interpretation which is sometimes proposed of the classical theory as a theory aimed at determining single ‘pictures’ of the economic system taken at different ‘points of time’ should also be rejected. Finally, we point out that the distinction between two notions of time reappears in the neo-Walrasian reformulation of the neoclassical theory, where, differently from what happened in Robinson’s case, it has the effect of obscuring the very possibility of comparing that theory with alternative economic theories.