一時期／支部 4

THE CHOICE OF UNITS

I

In this and the next three 一時期／支部s we shall be 占領するd with an 試みる／企てる to （疑いを）晴らす up 確かな perplexities which have no peculiar or 排除的 relevance to the problems which it is our special 目的 to 診察する. Thus these 一時期／支部s are in the nature of a digression, which will 妨げる us for a time from pursulng our main 主題. Their 支配する-事柄 is only discussed here because it does not happen to have been already 扱う／治療するd どこかよそで in a way which I find 適する to the needs of my own particular enquiry.

The three perplexities which most 妨げるd my 進歩 in 令状ing this 調書をとる／予約する, so that I could not 表明する myself conveniently until I had 設立する some 解答 for them, are: firstly, the choice of the 部隊s of 量 appropriate to the problems of the 経済的な system as a whole; secondly, the part played by 期待 in 経済的な 分析; and, thirdly, the 鮮明度／定義 of income.

II

That the 部隊s, ーに関して／ーの点でs of which 経済学者s 一般的に work, are unsatisfactory can be illustrated by the 概念s of the 国家の （株主への）配当, the 在庫／株 of real 資本／首都 and the general price-level:

(i)  The 国家の （株主への）配当, as defined by Marshall and Professor Pigou, 対策 the 容積／容量 of 現在の 生産（高） or real income and not the value of 生産（高） or money-income. その上に, it depends, in some sense, on 逮捕する 生産（高）;ｾon the 逮捕する 新規加入, that is to say, to the 資源s of the community 利用できる for 消費 or for retention as 資本／首都 在庫／株, 予定 to the 経済的な activities and sacrifices of the 現在の period, after 許すing for the wastage of the 在庫／株 of real 資本／首都 存在するing at the 開始／学位授与式 of the period. On this basis an 試みる／企てる is made to 築く a quantitative science. But it is a 墓／厳粛／彫る／重大な 反対 to this 鮮明度／定義 for such a 目的 that the community's 生産（高） of goods and services is a 非，不，無-homogeneous コンビナート／複合体 which cannot be 手段d, 厳密に speaking, except in 確かな special 事例／患者s, as for example when all the items of one 生産（高） are 含むd in the same 割合s in another 生産（高）.

(ii)  The difficulty is even greater when, in order to calculate 逮捕する 生産（高）, we try to 手段 the 逮捕する 新規加入 to 資本／首都 器具／備品; for we have to find some basis for a quantitative comparison between the new items of 器具／備品 produced during the period and the old items which have 死なせる／死ぬd by wastage. ーするために arrive at the 逮捕する 国家の （株主への）配当, Professor Pigou deducts such obsolescence, etc., 'as may 公正に／かなり be called "normal"; and the practical 実験（する） of normality is that the depletion is 十分に 正規の／正選手 to be foreseen, if not in 詳細（に述べる）, at least in the large'. But, since this deduction is not a deduction ーに関して／ーの点でs of money, he is 伴う／関わるd in assuming that there can be a change in physical 量, although there has been no physical change; i.e. he is covertly introducing changes in value.

Moreover, he is unable to 工夫する any 満足な 決まり文句／製法 to 評価する new 器具／備品 against old when, 借りがあるing to changes in technique, the two are not 同一の. I believe that the 概念 at which Professor Pigou is 目的（とする）ing is the 権利 and appropriate 概念 for 経済的な 分析. But, until a 満足な system of 部隊s has been 可決する・採択するd, its 正確な 鮮明度／定義 is an impossible 仕事. The problem of comparing one real 生産（高） with another and of then calculating 逮捕する 生産（高） by setting off new items of 器具／備品 against the wastage of old items 現在のs conundrums which 許す, one can confidently say, of no 解答.

(iii)  Thirdly, the 井戸／弁護士席-known, but 避けられない, element of vagueness which admittedly …に出席するs the 概念 of the general price-level makes this 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 very unsatisfactory for the 目的s of a causal 分析, which せねばならない be exact.

にもかかわらず these difficulties are rightly regarded as 'conundrums'. They are '純粋に theoretical' in the sense that they never perplex, or indeed enter in any way into, 商売／仕事 決定／判定勝ち（する）s and have no relevance to the causal sequence of 経済的な events, which are （疑いを）晴らす-削減（する） and determinate in spite of the quantitative indeterminacy of these 概念s. It is natural, therefore, to 結論する that they not only 欠如（する） precision but are unnecessary. 明白に our quantitative 分析 must be 表明するd without using any quantitatively vague 表現s. And, indeed, as soon as one makes the 試みる／企てる, it becomes （疑いを）晴らす, as I hope to show, that one can get on much better without them.

The fact that two incommensurable collections of miscellaneous 反対するs cannot in themselves 供給する the 構成要素 for a quantitative 分析 need not, of course, 妨げる us from making approximate 統計に基づく comparisons, depending on some 幅の広い element of judgment rather than of strict 計算／見積り, which may 所有する significance and 有効性，効力 within 確かな 限界s.

But the proper place for such things as 逮捕する real 生産（高） and the general level of prices lies within the field of historical and 統計に基づく description, and their 目的 should be to 満足させる historical or social curiosity, a 目的 for which perfect precisionｾsuch as our causal 分析 要求するs, whether or not our knowledge of the actual values of the 関連した 量s is 完全にする or exactｾis neither usual nor necessary. To say that 逮捕する 生産（高） to-day is greater, but the price-level lower, than ten years ago or one year ago, is a proposition of a 類似の character to the 声明 that Queen Victoria was a better queen but not a happier woman than Queen Elizabethｾa proposition not without meaning and not without 利益／興味, but unsuitable as 構成要素 for the differential calculus. Our precision will be a mock precision if we try to use such partly vague and 非，不，無-quantitative 概念s as the basis of a quantitative 分析.

III

On every particular occasion, let it be remembered, an entrepreneur is 関心d with 決定／判定勝ち（する）s as to the 規模 on which to work a given 資本／首都 器具／備品; and when we say that the 期待 of an 増加するd 需要・要求する, i.e. a raising of the aggregate 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事, will lead to an 増加する in aggregate 生産（高）, we really mean that the 会社／堅いs, which own the 資本／首都 器具／備品, will be induced to associate with it a greater aggregate 雇用 of 労働. In the 事例／患者 of an individual 会社／堅い or 産業 producing a homogeneous 製品 we can speak legitimately, if we wish, of 増加するs or 減少（する）s of 生産（高）. But when we are aggregating the activities of all 会社／堅いs, we cannot speak 正確に except ーに関して／ーの点でs of 量s of 雇用 適用するd to a given 器具／備品. The 概念s of 生産（高） as a whole and its price-level are not 要求するd in this 状況, since we have no need of an 絶対の 手段 of 現在の aggregate 生産（高）, such as would enable us to compare its 量 with the 量 which would result from the 協会 of a different 資本／首都 器具／備品 with a different 量 of 雇用. When, for 目的s of description or rough comparison, we wish to speak of an 増加する of 生産（高）, we must rely on the general presumption that the 量 of 雇用 associated with a given 資本／首都 器具／備品 will be a 満足な 索引 of the 量 of resultant 生産（高）;ｾthe two 存在 推定するd to 増加する and 減少（する） together, though not in a 限定された 数値／数字による 割合.

In 取引，協定ing with the theory of 雇用 I 提案する, therefore, to make use of only two 根底となる 部隊s of 量, すなわち, 量s of money-value and 量s of 雇用. The first of these is 厳密に homogeneous, and the second can be made so. For, in so far as different grades and 肉親，親類d of 労働 and 給料を受けている 援助 enjoy a more or いっそう少なく 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 親族 remuneration, the 量 of 雇用 can be 十分に defined for our 目的 by taking an hour's 雇用 of ordinary 労働 as our 部隊 and 負わせるing an hour's 雇用 of special 労働 in 割合 to its remuneration; i.e. an hour of special 労働 remunerated at 二塁打 ordinary 率s will count as two 部隊s. We shall call the 部隊 in which the 量 of 雇用 is 手段d the 労働-部隊; and the money-行う of a 労働-部隊 we shall call the 行う-部隊. Thus, if E is the 給料 (and salaries) 法案, W the 行う-部隊, and N the 量 of 雇用, E  =  N ﾗ W.

This 仮定／引き受けること of homogeneity in the 供給（する） of 労働 is not upset by the obvious fact of 広大な／多数の／重要な differences in the specialised 技術 of individual 労働者s and in their suitability for different 占領／職業s. For, if the remuneration of the 労働者s is 比例する to their efficiency, the differences are dealt with by our having regarded individuals as 与える／捧げるing to the 供給（する） of 労働 in 割合 to their remuneration; whilst if, as 生産（高） 増加するs, a given 会社／堅い has to bring in 労働 which is いっそう少なく and いっそう少なく efficient for its special 目的s per 行う-部隊 paid to it, this is 単に one factor の中で others 主要な to a 減らすing return from the 資本／首都 器具／備品 ーに関して／ーの点でs of 生産（高） as more 労働 is 雇うd on it. We subsume, so to speak, the 非，不，無-homogeneity of 平等に remunerated 労働 部隊s in the 器具／備品, which we regard as いっそう少なく and いっそう少なく adapted to 雇う the 利用できる 労働 部隊s as 生産（高） 増加するs, instead of regarding the 利用できる 労働 部隊s as いっそう少なく and いっそう少なく adapted to use a homogeneous 資本／首都 器具／備品. Thus if there is no 黒字／過剰 of specialised or practised 労働 and the use of いっそう少なく suitable 労働 伴う／関わるs a higher 労働 cost per 部隊 of 生産（高）, this means that the 率 at which the return from the 器具／備品 減らすs as 雇用 増加するs is more 早い than it would be if there were such a 黒字／過剰. Even in the 限界ing 事例／患者 where different 労働 部隊s were so 高度に specialised as to be altogether incapable of 存在 代用品，人d for one another, there is no awkwardness; for this 単に means that the elasticity of 供給（する） of 生産（高） from a particular type of 資本／首都 器具／備品 落ちるs suddenly to 無 when all the 利用できる 労働 specialised to its use is already 雇うd. Thus our 仮定／引き受けること of a homogeneous 部隊 of 労働 伴う／関わるs no difficulties unless there is 広大な／多数の／重要な 不安定 in the 親族 remuneration of different 労働-部隊s; and even this difficulty can be dealt with, if it arises, by supposing a 早い 義務／負債 to change in the 供給（する） of 労働 and the 形態／調整 of the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事.

It is my belief that much unnecessary perplexity can be 避けるd if we 限界 ourselves 厳密に to the two 部隊s, money and 労働, when we are 取引，協定ing with the behaviour of the 経済的な system as a whole; reserving the use of 部隊s of particular 生産（高）s and 器具／備品s to the occasions when we are analysing the 生産（高） of individual 会社／堅いs or 産業s in 孤立／分離; and the use of vague 概念s, such as the 量 of 生産（高） as a whole, the 量 of 資本／首都 器具／備品 as a whole and the general level of prices, to the occasions when we are 試みる／企てるing some historical comparison which is within 確かな (perhaps 公正に／かなり wide) 限界s avowedly unprecise and approximate.

It follows that we shall 手段 changes in 現在の 生産（高） by 言及／関連 to the number of hours of 労働 paid for (whether to 満足させる 消費者s or to produce fresh 資本／首都 器具／備品) on the 存在するing 資本／首都 器具／備品, hours of 技術d 労働 存在 負わせるd in 割合 to their remuneration. We have no need of a quantitative comparison between this 生産（高） and the 生産（高） which would result from associating a different 始める，決める of 労働者s with a different 資本／首都 器具／備品. To 予報する how entrepreneurs 所有するing a given 器具／備品 will 答える／応じる to a 転換 in the aggregate 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 it is not necessary to know how the 量 of the resulting 生産（高）, the 基準 of life and the general level of prices would compare with what they were at a different date or in another country.

IV

It is easily shown that the 条件s of 供給（する）, such as are usually 表明するd ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 供給（する） curve, and the elasticity of 供給（する） relating 生産（高） to price, can be 扱うd in 条件 of our two chosen 部隊s by means of the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事, without 言及／関連 to 量s of 生産（高）, whether we are 関心d with a particular 会社／堅い or 産業 or with 経済的な activity as a whole. For the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事 for a given 会社／堅い (and 類似して for a given 産業 or for 産業 as a whole) is given by

Z_r  =  f_r(N_r),

where Z_r is the proceeds (逮捕する of 使用者 cost) the 期待 of which will induce a level of 雇用 N_r. If, therefore, the relation between 雇用 and 生産（高） is such that an 雇用 N_r results in an 生産（高） O_r, where O_r  =  y_r(N_r), it follows that

             Z_r + U_r(N_r)                f_r(N_r) + U_r(N_r)
p  =  ｾｾｾｾｾｾｾ  =  ｾｾｾｾｾｾｾｾｾ
                    O_r                              y_r(N_r)

is the ordinary 供給（する） curve, where U_r(N_r) is the (推定する／予想するd) 使用者 cost corresponding to a level of 雇用 N_r.

Thus in the 事例／患者 of each homogeneous 商品／必需品, for which O_r  =  y_r(N_r) has a 限定された meaning, we can 評価する Z_r  =  f_r(N_r) in the ordinary way; but we can then aggregate the N_r's in a way in which we cannot aggregate the O_r's, since SO_r is not a 数値／数字による 量. Moreover, if we can assume that, in a given 環境, a given aggregate 雇用 will be 分配するd in a unique way between different 産業s, so that N_r is a 機能（する）／行事 of N, その上の simplifications are possible.

---