一時期／支部 2

THE POSTULATES OF THE CLASSICAL ECONOMICS

Most treatises on the theory of value and 生産／産物 are まず第一に／本来 関心d with the 配当 of a given 容積／容量 of 雇うd 資源s between different uses and with the 条件s which, assuming the 雇用 of this 量 of 資源s, 決定する their 親族 rewards and the 親族 values of their 製品s.

The question, also, of the 容積／容量 of the 利用できる 資源s, in the sense of the size of the employable 全住民, the extent of natural wealth and the 蓄積するd 資本／首都 器具／備品, has often been 扱う／治療するd descriptively. But the pure theory of what 決定するs the actual 雇用 of the 利用できる 資源s has seldom been 診察するd in 広大な／多数の／重要な 詳細（に述べる）. To say that it has not been 診察するd at all would, of course, be absurd. For every discussion 関心ing fluctuations of 雇用, of which there have been many, has been 関心d with it. I mean, not that the topic has been overlooked, but that the 根底となる theory underlying it has been みなすd so simple and obvious that it has received, at the most, a 明らかにする について言及する.

The classical theory of 雇用ｾ恐らく simple and obviousｾhas been based, I think, on two 根底となる postulates, though 事実上 without discussion, すなわち:

I. The 行う is equal to the ごくわずかの 製品 of 労働

That is to say, the 行う of an 雇うd person is equal to the value which would be lost if 雇用 were to be 減ずるd by one 部隊 (after deducting any other costs which this 削減 of 生産（高） would 避ける); 支配する, however, to the 資格 that the equality may be 乱すd, in 一致 with 確かな 原則s, if 競争 and markets are imperfect.

II. The 公共事業（料金）／有用性 of the 行う when a given 容積／容量 of 労働 is 雇うd is equal to the ごくわずかの disutility of that 量 of 雇用.

That is to say, the real 行う of an 雇うd person is that which is just 十分な (in the estimation of the 雇うd persons themselves) to induce the 容積／容量 of 労働 現実に 雇うd to be 来たるべき; 支配する to the 資格 that the equality for each individual 部隊 of 労働 may be 乱すd by combination between employable 部隊s analogous to the imperfections of 競争 which qualify the first postulate. Disutility must be here understood to cover every 肉親，親類d of 推論する／理由 which might lead a man, or a 団体／死体 of men, to 保留する their 労働 rather than 受託する a 行う which had to them a 公共事業（料金）／有用性 below a 確かな 最小限.

This postulate is 両立できる with what may be called 'frictional' 失業. For a 現実主義の 解釈／通訳 of it legitimately 許すs for さまざまな inexactnesses of 調整 which stand in the way of continuous 十分な 雇用: for example, 失業 予定 to a 一時的な want of balance between the 親族 量s of specialised 資源s as a result of miscalculation or intermittent 需要・要求する; or to time-lags consequent on unforeseen changes; or to the fact that the change-over from one 雇用 to another cannot be 影響d without a 確かな 延期する, so that there will always 存在する in a 非，不，無-static society a 割合 of 資源s 失業した 'between 職業s'. In 新規加入 to 'frictional' 失業, the postulate is also 両立できる with 'voluntary' 失業 予定 to the 拒絶 or 無（不）能 of a 部隊 of 労働, as a result of 法律制定 or social practices or of combination for 集団の／共同の 取引ing or of slow 返答 to change or of mere human obstinacy, to 受託する a reward corresponding to the value of the 製品 attributable to its ごくわずかの 生産性. But these two 部類s of 'frictional' 失業 and 'voluntary' 失業 are 包括的な. The classical postulates do not 収容する／認める of the 可能性 of the third 部類, which I shall define below as 'involuntary' 失業.

支配する to these 資格s, the 容積／容量 of 雇うd 資源s is duly 決定するd, によれば the classical theory, by the two postulates. The first gives us the 需要・要求する schedule for 雇用, the second gives us the 供給（する） schedule; and the 量 of 雇用 is 直す／買収する，八百長をするd at the point where the 公共事業（料金）／有用性 of the ごくわずかの 製品 balances the disutility of the ごくわずかの 雇用. It would follow from this that there are only four possible means of 増加するing 雇用:

(a) An 改良 in organisation or in foresight which 減らすs 'frictional' 失業;

(b) a 減少（する） in the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働, as 表明するd by the real 行う for which 付加 労働 is 利用できる, so as to 減らす 'voluntary' 失業;

(c) an 増加する in the ごくわずかの physical 生産性 of 労働 in the 行う-goods 産業s (to use Professor Pigou's convenient 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 for goods upon the price of which the 公共事業（料金）／有用性 of the money-行う depends);

or (d) an 増加する in the price of 非，不，無-行う-goods compared with the price of 行う-goods, associated with a 転換 in the 支出 of 非，不，無-行う-earners from 行う-goods to 非，不，無-行う-goods.

This, to the best of my understanding, is the 実体 of Professor Pigou's Theory of 失業ｾthe only 詳細（に述べる）d account of the classical theory of 雇用 which 存在するs.

II

Is it true that the above 部類s are 包括的な in 見解（をとる） of the fact that the 全住民 一般に is seldom doing as much work as it would like to do on the basis of the 現在の 行う? For, admittedly, more 労働 would, as a 支配する, be 来たるべき at the 存在するing money-行う if it were 需要・要求するd. The classical school reconcile this 現象 with their second postulate by arguing that, while the 需要・要求する for 労働 at the 存在するing money-行う may be 満足させるd before everyone willing to work at this 行う is 雇うd, this 状況／情勢 is 予定 to an open or tacit 協定 amongst 労働者s not to work for いっそう少なく, and that if 労働 as a whole would agree to a 削減 of money-給料 more 雇用 would be 来たるべき. If this is the 事例／患者, such 失業, though 明らかに involuntary, is not 厳密に so, and せねばならない be 含むd under the above 部類 of 'voluntary' 失業 予定 to the 影響s of 集団の／共同の 取引ing, etc.

This calls for two 観察s, the first of which relates to the actual 態度 of 労働者s に向かって real 給料 and money-給料 それぞれ and is not theoretically 根底となる, but the second of which is 根底となる.

Let us assume, for the moment, that 労働 is not 用意が出来ている to work for a lower money-行う and that a 削減 in the 存在するing level of money-給料 would lead, through strikes or さもなければ, to a 撤退 from the 労働 market of 労働 which is now 雇うd. Does it follow from this that the 存在するing level of real 給料 正確に 対策 the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働? Not やむを得ず. For, although a 削減 in the 存在するing money-行う would lead to a 撤退 of 労働, it does not follow that a 落ちる in the value of the 存在するing money-行う in 条件 of 行う-goods would do so, if it were 予定 to a rise in the price of the latter. In other words, it may be the 事例／患者 that within a 確かな 範囲 the 需要・要求する of 労働 is for a 最小限 money-行う and not for a 最小限 real 行う. The classical school have tacitly assumed that this would 伴う／関わる no 重要な change in their theory. But this is not so. For if the 供給（する） of 労働 is not a 機能（する）／行事 of real 給料 as its 単独の variable, their argument breaks 負かす／撃墜する 完全に and leaves the question of what the actual 雇用 will be やめる indeterminate. They do not seem to have realised that, unless the 供給（する） of 労働 is a 機能（する）／行事 of real 給料 alone, their 供給（する） curve for 労働 will 転換 bodily with every movement of prices. Thus their method is tied up with their very special 仮定／引き受けることs, and cannot be adapted to を取り引きする the more general 事例／患者.

Now ordinary experience tells us, beyond 疑問, that a 状況／情勢 where 労働 規定するs (within 限界s) for a money-行う rather than a real 行う, so far from 存在 a mere 可能性, is the normal 事例／患者. Whilst 労働者s will usually resist a 削減 of money-給料, it is not their practice to 身を引く their 労働 whenever there is a rise in the price of 行う-goods. It is いつかs said that it would be illogical for 労働 to resist a 削減 of money-給料 but not to resist a 削減 of real 給料. For 推論する／理由s given below (p. 14), this might not be so illogical as it appears at first; and, as we shall see later, fortunately so. But, whether 論理（学）の or illogical, experience shows that this is how 労働 in fact behaves.

Moreover, the 論争 that the 失業 which characterises a 不景気 is 予定 to a 拒絶 by 労働 to 受託する a 削減 of money-給料 is not 明確に supported by the facts. It is not very plausible to 主張する that 失業 in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs in 1932 was 予定 either to 労働 obstinately 辞退するing to 受託する a 削減 of money-給料 or to its obstinately 需要・要求するing a real 行う beyond what the 生産性 of the 経済的な machine was 有能な of furnishing. Wide variations are experienced in the 容積／容量 of 雇用 without any 明らかな change either in the 最小限 real 需要・要求するs of 労働 or in its 生産性. 労働 is not more truculent in the 不景気 than in the にわか景気ｾfar from it. Nor is its physical 生産性 いっそう少なく. These facts from experience are a prima facie ground for 尋問 the adequacy of the classical 分析.

It would be 利益／興味ing to see the results of a 統計に基づく enquiry into the actual 関係 between changes in money-給料 and changes in real 給料. In the 事例／患者 of a change peculiar to a particular 産業 one would 推定する／予想する the change in real 給料 to be in the same direction as the change in money-給料. But in the 事例／患者 of changes in the general level of 給料, it will be 設立する, I think, that the change in real 給料 associated with a change in money-給料, so far from 存在 usually in the same direction, is almost always in the opposite direction. When money-給料 are rising, that is to say, it will be 設立する that real 給料 are 落ちるing; and when money-給料 are 落ちるing, real 給料 are rising. This is because, in the short period, 落ちるing money-給料 and rising real 給料 are each, for 独立した・無所属 推論する／理由s, likely to …を伴って 減少（する）ing 雇用; 労働 存在 readier to 受託する 行う-削減（する）s when 雇用 is 落ちるing off, yet real 給料 必然的に rising in the same circumstances on account of the 増加するing ごくわずかの return to a given 資本／首都 器具／備品 when 生産（高） is 減らすd.

If, indeed, it were true that the 存在するing real 行う is a 最小限 below which more 労働 than is now 雇うd will not be 来たるべき in any circumstances, involuntary 失業, apart from frictional 失業, would be 非，不，無-existent. But to suppose that this is invariably the 事例／患者 would be absurd. For more 労働 than is at 現在の 雇うd is usually 利用できる at the 存在するing money-行う, even though the price of 行う-goods is rising and, その結果, the real 行う 落ちるing. If this is true, the 行う-goods 同等（の） of the 存在するing money-行う is not an 正確な 指示，表示する物 of the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働, and the second postulate does not 持つ／拘留する good.

But there is a more 根底となる 反対. The second postulate flows from the idea that the real 給料 of 労働 depend on the 行う 取引s which 労働 makes with the entrepreneurs. It is 認める, of course, that the 取引s are 現実に made ーに関して／ーの点でs of money, and even that the real 給料 許容できる to 労働 are not altogether 独立した・無所属 of what the corresponding money-行う happens to be. にもかかわらず it is the money-行う thus arrived at which is held to 決定する the real 行う. Thus the classical theory assumes that it is always open to 労働 to 減ずる its real 行う by 受託するing a 削減 in its money-行う. The postulate that there is a 傾向 for the real 行う to come to equality with the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働 明確に 推定するs that 労働 itself is in a position to decide the real 行う for which it 作品, though not the 量 of 雇用 来たるべき at this 行う.

The 伝統的な theory 持続するs, in short, that the 行う 取引s between the entrepreneurs and the 労働者s 決定する the real 行う; so that, assuming 解放する／自由な 競争 amongst 雇用者s and no 制限する combination amongst 労働者s, the latter can, if they wish, bring their real 給料 into 順応／服従 with the ごくわずかの disutility of the 量 of 雇用 申し込む／申し出d by the 雇用者s at that 行う. If this is not true, then there is no longer any 推論する／理由 to 推定する／予想する a 傾向 に向かって equality between the real 行う and the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働.

The classical 結論s are ーするつもりであるd, it must be remembered, to 適用する to the whole 団体／死体 of 労働 and do not mean 単に that a 選び出す／独身 individual can get 雇用 by 受託するing a 削減（する） in money-給料 which his fellows 辞退する. They are supposed to be 平等に applicable to a の近くにd system as to an open system, and are not 扶養家族 on the 特徴 of an open system or on the 影響s of a 削減 of money-給料 in a 選び出す／独身 country on its foreign 貿易（する）, which 嘘（をつく）, of course, 完全に outside the field of this discussion. Nor are they based on indirect 影響s 予定 to a lower 給料-法案 ーに関して／ーの点でs of money having 確かな reactions on the banking system and the 明言する／公表する of credit, 影響s which we shall 診察する in 詳細（に述べる） in 一時期／支部 19. They are based on the belief that in a の近くにd system a 削減 in the general level of money-給料 will be …を伴ってd, at any 率 in the short period and 支配する only to minor 資格s, by some, though not always a proportionate, 削減 in real 給料.

Now the 仮定／引き受けること that the general level of real 給料 depends on the money-行う 取引s between the 雇用者s and the 労働者s is not 明白に true. Indeed it is strange that so little 試みる／企てる should have been made to 証明する or to 反駁する it. For it is far from 存在 一貫した with the general tenor of the classical theory, which has taught us to believe that prices are 治める／統治するd by ごくわずかの prime cost ーに関して／ーの点でs of money and that money-給料 大部分は 治める／統治する ごくわずかの prime cost. Thus if money-給料 change, one would have 推定する／予想するd the classical school to argue that prices would change in almost the same 割合, leaving the real 行う and the level of 失業 事実上 the same as before, any small 伸び（る） or loss to 労働 存在 at the expense or 利益（をあげる） of other elements of ごくわずかの cost which have been left unaltered. They seem, however, to have been コースを変えるd from this line of thought, partly by the settled 有罪の判決 that 労働 is in a position to 決定する its own real 行う and partly, perhaps, by 最大の関心事 with the idea that prices depend on the 量 of money. And the belief in the proposition that 労働 is always in a position to 決定する its own real 行う, once 可決する・採択するd, has been ina~ntained by its 存在 混乱させるd with the proposition that 労働 is always in a position to 決定する what real 行う shall correspond to 十分な 雇用, i.e. the 最大限 量 of 雇用 which is 両立できる with a given real 行う.

To sum up: there are two 反対s to the second postulate of the classical theory. The first relates to the actual behaviour of 労働. A 落ちる in real 給料 予定 to a rise in prices, with money-給料 unaltered, does not, as a 支配する, 原因（となる） the 供給（する） of 利用できる 労働 on 申し込む／申し出 at the 現在の 行う to 落ちる below the 量 現実に 雇うd 事前の to the rise of prices. To sthat it does is to suppose that all those who are now 失業した though willing to work at the 現在の 行う will 身を引く the 申し込む／申し出 of their 労働 in the event of even a small rise in the cost of living. Yet this strange supposition 明らかに underlies Professor Pigou's Theory of 失業, and it is what all members of the 正統派の school are tacitly assuming.

But the other, more 根底となる, 反対, which we shall develop in the 続いて起こるing 一時期／支部s, flows from our 論争ing the 仮定／引き受けること that the general level of real 給料 is 直接／まっすぐに 決定するd by the character of the 行う 取引. In assuming that the 行う 取引 決定するs the real 行う the classical school have slipt in an illicit 仮定／引き受けること. For there may be no method 利用できる to 労働 as a whole whereby it can bring the 行う-goods 同等（の） of the general level of money 給料 into 順応／服従 with the ごくわずかの disutility of the 現在の 容積／容量 of 雇用. There may 存在する no expedient by which 労働 as a whole can 減ずる its real 行う to a given 人物／姿／数字 by making 改訂するd money 取引s with the entrepreneurs. This will be our 論争. We shall endeavour to show that まず第一に／本来 it is 確かな other 軍隊s which 決定する the general level of real 給料. The 試みる／企てる to elucidate this problem will be one of our main 主題s. We shall argue that there has been a 根底となる 誤解 of how in this 尊敬（する）・点 the economy in which we live 現実に 作品.

III

Though the struggle over money-給料 between individuals and groups is often believed to 決定する the general level of real-給料, it is, in fact, 関心d with a different 反対する. Since there is imperfect mobility of 労働, and 給料 do not tend to an exact equality of 逮捕する advantage in different 占領／職業s, any individual or group of individuals, who 同意 to a 削減 of money-給料 比較して to others, will 苦しむ a 親族 削減 in real 給料, which is a 十分な justification for them to resist it. On the other 手渡す it would be impracticable to resist every 削減 of real 給料, 予定 to a change in the 購入（する）ing-力／強力にする of money which 影響する／感情s all 労働者s alike; and in fact 削減s of real 給料 arising in this way are not, as a 支配する, resisted unless they proceed to an extreme degree. Moreover, a 抵抗 to 削減s in money-給料 適用するing to particular 産業s does not raise the same insuperable 妨げる／法廷，弁護士業 to an 増加する in aggregate 雇用 which would result from a 類似の 抵抗 to every 削減 in real 給料.

In other words, the struggle about money-給料 まず第一に／本来 影響する／感情s the 配当 of the aggregate real 行う between different 労働-groups, and not its 普通の／平均（する） 量 per 部隊 of 雇用, which depends, as we shall see, on a different 始める，決める of 軍隊s. The 影響 of combination on the part of a group of 労働者s is to 保護する their 親族 real 行う. The general level of real 給料 depends on the other 軍隊s of the 経済的な system.

Thus it is fortunate that the 労働者s, though unconsciously, are instinctively more reasonable 経済学者s than the classical school, inasmuch as they resist 削減s of money-給料, which are seldom or never of an all-一連の会議、交渉／完成する character, even though the 存在するing real 同等（の） of these 給料 越えるs the ごくわずかの disutility of the 存在するing 雇用; 反して they do not resist 削減s of real 給料, which are associated with 増加するs in aggregate 雇用 and leave 親族 money-給料 不変の, unless the 削減 proceeds so far as to 脅す a 削減 of the real 行う below the ごくわずかの disutility of the 存在するing 容積／容量 of 雇用. Every 貿易（する） union will put up some 抵抗 to a 削減（する） in money-給料, however small. But since no 貿易（する） union would dream of striking on every occasion of a rise in the cost of living, they do not raise the 障害 to any 増加する in aggregate 雇用 which is せいにするd to them by the classical school.

IV

We must now define the third 部類 of 失業, すなわち 'involuntary' 失業 in the strict sense, the 可能性 of which the classical theory does not 収容する／認める.

明確に we do not mean by 'involuntary' 失業 the mere 存在 of an unexhausted capacity to work. An eight-hour day does not 構成する 失業 because it is not beyond human capacity to work ten hours. Nor should we regard as 'involuntary' 失業 the 撤退 of their 労働 by a 団体／死体 of 労働者s because they do not choose to work for いっそう少なく than a 確かな real reward. その上に, it will be convenient to 除外する 'frictional' 失業 from our 鮮明度／定義 of 'involuntary' 失業. My 鮮明度／定義 is, therefore, as follows: Men are involuntarily 失業した If, in the event of a small rise in the price of 行う-goods 比較して to the money-行う, both the aggregate 供給（する） of 労働 willing to work for the 現在の money-行う and the aggregate 需要・要求する for it at that 行う would be greater than the 存在するing 容積／容量 of 雇用. An 代案／選択肢 鮮明度／定義, which 量s, however, to the same thing, will be given in the next 一時期／支部 (一時期／支部 3).

It follows from this 鮮明度／定義 that the equality of the real 行う to the ごくわずかの disutility of 雇用 presupposed by the second postulate, realistically 解釈する／通訳するd, corresponds to the absence of 'involuntary' 失業. This 明言する／公表する of 事件／事情／状勢s we shall 述べる as '十分な' 雇用, both 'frictional' and 'voluntary' 失業 存在 一貫した with '十分な' 雇用 thus defined. This fits in, we shall find, with other 特徴 of the classical theory, which is best regarded as a theory of 配当 in 条件s of 十分な 雇用. So long as the classical postulates 持つ／拘留する good, 失業, which is in the above sense involuntary, cannot occur. 明らかな 失業 must, therefore, be the result either of 一時的な loss of work of the 'between 職業s' type or of intermittent 需要・要求する for 高度に specialised 資源s or of the 影響 of a 貿易（する） union 'の近くにd shop' on the 雇用 of 解放する／自由な 労働. Thus writers in the classical tradition, overlooking the special 仮定／引き受けること underlying their theory, have been driven 必然的に to the 結論, perfectly 論理（学）の on their 仮定／引き受けること, that 明らかな 失業 (apart from the 認める exceptions) must be 予定 at 底（に届く） to a 拒絶 by the 失業した factors to 受託する a reward which corresponds to their ごくわずかの 生産性. A classical 経済学者 may sympathise with 労働 in 辞退するing to 受託する a 削減（する） in its money-行う, and he will 収容する／認める that it may not be wise to make it to 会合，会う 条件s which are 一時的な; but 科学の 正直さ 軍隊s him to 宣言する that this 拒絶 is, にもかかわらず, at the 底（に届く） of the trouble.

明白に, however, if the classical theory is only applicable to the 事例／患者 of 十分な 雇用, it is fallacious to 適用する it to the problems of involuntary 失業ｾif there be such a thing (and who will 否定する it?). The classical 理論家s 似ている Euclidean geometers in a 非，不，無-Euclidean world who, discovering that in experience straight lines 明らかに 平行の often 会合，会う, rebuke the lines for not keeping straightｾas the only 治療（薬） for the unfortunate 衝突／不一致s which are occurring. Yet, in truth, there is no 治療（薬） except to throw over the axiom of 平行のs and to work out a 非，不，無-Euclidean geometry. Something 類似の is 要求するd to-day in 経済的なs. We need to throw over the second postulate of the classical doctrine and to work out the behaviour of a system in which involuntary 失業 in the strict sense is possible.

V

In 強調ing our point of 出発 from the classical system, we must not overlook an important point of 協定. For we shall 持続する the first postulate as heretofore, 支配する only to the same 資格s as in the classical theory; and we must pause, for a moment, to consider what this 伴う／関わるs.

It means that, with a given organisation, 器具／備品 and technique, real 給料 and the 容積／容量 of 生産（高） (and hence of 雇用) are uniquely correlated, so that, in general, an 増加する in 雇用 can only occur to the accompaniment of a 拒絶する／低下する in the 率 of real 給料. Thus I am not 論争ing this 決定的な fact which the classical 経済学者s have (rightly) 主張するd as indefeasible. In a given 明言する／公表する of organisation, 器具／備品 and technique, the real 行う earned by a 部隊 of 労働 has a unique (inverse) correlation with the 容積／容量 of 雇用. Thus if 雇用 増加するs, then, in the short period, the reward per 部隊 of 労働 ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-goods must, in general, 拒絶する／低下する and 利益（をあげる）s 増加する. This is 簡単に the obverse of the familiar proposition that 産業 is 普通は working 支配する to 減少（する）ing returns in the short period during which 器具／備品 etc. is assumed to be constant; so that the ごくわずかの 製品 in the 行う-good 産業s (which 治める／統治するs real 給料) やむを得ず 減らすs as 雇用 is 増加するd. So long, indeed, as this proposition 持つ／拘留するs, any means of 増加するing 雇用 must lead at the same time to a diminution of the ごくわずかの 製品 and hence of the 率 of 給料 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of this 製品.

But when we have thrown over the second postulate, a 拒絶する／低下する in 雇用, although やむを得ず associated with 労働's receiving a 行う equal in value to a larger 量 of 行う-goods, is not やむを得ず 予定 to 労働's 需要・要求するing a larger 量 of 行う-goods; and a 乗り気 on the part of 労働 to 受託する lower money-給料 is not やむを得ず a 治療（薬） for 失業. The theory of 給料 in relation to 雇用, to which we are here 主要な up, cannot be fully elucidated, however, until 一時期／支部 19 and its 虫垂 have been reached.

VI

From the time of Say and Ricardo the classical 経済学者s have taught that 供給（する） creates its own 需要・要求する;ｾmeaning by this in some 重要な, but not 明確に defined, sense that the whole of the costs of 生産／産物 must やむを得ず be spent in the aggregate, 直接／まっすぐに or 間接に, on 購入（する）ing the 製品.

In J.S. Mill's 原則s of Political Economy the doctrine is expressly 始める，決める 前へ／外へ:

What 構成するs the means of 支払い（額） for 商品／必需品s is 簡単に 商品／必需品s. Each person's means of 支払う／賃金ing for the 生産／産物s of other people consist of those which he himself 所有するs. All 販売人s are 必然的に, and by the meaning of the word, 買い手s. Could we suddenly 二塁打 the 生産力のある 力／強力にするs of the country, we should 二塁打 the 供給（する） of 商品／必需品s in every market; but we should, by the same 一打／打撃, 二塁打 the 購入（する）ing 力／強力にする. Everybody would bring a 二塁打 需要・要求する 同様に as 供給（する）; everybody would be able to buy twice as much, because every one would have twice as much to 申し込む／申し出 in 交流.

As a corollary of the same doctrine, it has been supposed that any individual 行為／法令／行動する of 棄権するing from 消費 やむを得ず leads to, and 量s to the same thing as, 原因（となる）ing the 労働 and 商品／必需品s thus 解放（する）d from 供給（する）ing 消費 to be 投資するd in the 生産／産物 of 資本／首都 wealth. The に引き続いて passage from Marshall's Pure Theory of 国内の Values illustrates the 伝統的な approach:

The whole of a man's income is expended in the 購入（する） of services and of 商品／必需品s. It is indeed 一般的に said that a man spends some 部分 of his income and saves another. But it is a familiar 経済的な axiom that a man 購入（する）s 労働 and 商品／必需品s with that 部分 of his income which he saves just as much as he does with that he is said to spend. He is said to spend when he 捜し出すs to 得る 現在の enjoyment from the services and 商品／必需品s which he 購入（する）s. He is said to save when he 原因（となる）s the 労働 and the 商品／必需品s which he 購入（する）s to be 充てるd to the 生産／産物 of wealth from which he 推定する／予想するs to derive the means of enjoyment in the 未来.

It is true that it would not be 平易な to 引用する 類似の passages from Marshall's later work or from Edgeworth or Professor Pigou. The doctrine is never 明言する／公表するd to-day in this 天然のまま form. にもかかわらず it still underlies the whole classical theory, which would 崩壊（する） without it. 同時代の 経済学者s, who might hesitate to agree with Mill, do not hesitate to 受託する 結論s which 要求する Mill's doctrine as their premiss. The 有罪の判決, which runs, for example, through almost all Professor Pigou's work, that money makes no real difference except frictionally and that the theory of 生産／産物 and 雇用 can be worked out (like Mill's) as 存在 based on 'real' 交流s with money introduced perfunctorily in a later 一時期／支部, is the modern 見解／翻訳／版 of the classical tradition. 同時代の thought is still 深く，強烈に 法外なd in the notion that if people do not spend their money in one way they will spend it in another. 戦後の 経済学者s seldom, indeed, 後継する in 持続するing this 見地 終始一貫して; for their thought to-day is too much permeated with the contrary 傾向 and with facts of experience too 明白に inconsistent with their former 見解（をとる）. But they have not drawn 十分に far-reaching consequences; and have not 改訂するd their 根底となる theory.

In the first instance, these 結論s may have been 適用するd to the 肉親，親類d of economy in which we 現実に live by 誤った analogy from some 肉親，親類d of 非，不，無-交流 Robinson Crusoe economy, in which the income which individuals 消費する or 保持する as a result of their 生産力のある activity is, 現実に and 排他的に, the 生産（高） in specie of that activity. But, apart from this, the 結論 that the costs of 生産（高） are always covered in the aggregate by the sale-proceeds resulting from 需要・要求する, has 広大な／多数の／重要な plausibility, because it is difficult to distinguish it from another, 類似の-looking proposition which is indubitable, すなわち that the income derived in the aggregate by all the elements in the community 関心d in a 生産力のある activity やむを得ず has a value 正確に／まさに equal to the value of the 生産（高）.

類似して it is natural to suppose that the 行為／法令／行動する of an individual, by which he 濃厚にするs himself without 明らかに taking anything from anyone else, must also 濃厚にする the community as a whole; so that (as in the passage just 引用するd from Marshall) an 行為／法令／行動する of individual saving 必然的に leads to a 平行の 行為／法令／行動する of 投資. For, once more, it is indubitable that the sum of the 逮捕する increments of the wealth of individuals must be 正確に／まさに equal to the aggregate 逮捕する increment of the wealth of the community.

Those who think in this way are deceived, にもかかわらず, by an 光学の illusion, which makes two essentially different activities appear to be the same. They are fallaciously supposing that there is a nexus which 部隊s 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to 棄権する from 現在の 消費 with 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to 供給する for 未来 消費; 反して the 動機s which 決定する the latter are not linked in any simple way with the 動機s which 決定する the former.

It is, then, the 仮定／引き受けること of equality between the 需要・要求する price of 生産（高） as a whole and its 供給（する） price which is to be regarded as the classical theory's 'axiom of 平行のs'. 認めるd this, all the 残り／休憩（する） followsｾthe social advantages of 私的な and 国家の thrift, the 伝統的な 態度 に向かって the 率 of 利益／興味, the classical theory of 失業, the 量 theory of money, the unqualified advantages of laissez-faire in 尊敬（する）・点 of foreign 貿易（する） and much else which we shall have to question.

VII

At different points in this 一時期／支部 we have made the classical theory to depend in succession on the 仮定／引き受けることs:

(1)  that the real 行う is equal to the ごくわずかの disutility of the 存在するing 雇用;

(2)  that there is no such thing as involuntary 失業 in the strict sense;

(3)  that 供給（する） creates its own 需要・要求する in the sense that the aggregate 需要・要求する price is equal to the aggregate 供給（する） price for all levels of 生産（高） and 雇用.

These three 仮定／引き受けることs, however, all 量 to the same thing in the sense that they all stand and 落ちる together, any one of them 論理（学）上 伴う／関わるing the other two.

---