一時期／支部 6
THE DEFINITION OF INCOME, SAVING AND INVESTMENT
I. Income
During any period of time an entrepreneur will have sold
finished 生産（高） to 消費者s or to other entrepreneurs for a
確かな sum which we will 指定する as A. He will also
have spent a 確かな sum, 指定するd by A1, on
購入（する）ing finished 生産（高） from other entrepreneurs. And he will
結局最後にはーなる with a 資本／首都 器具／備品, which 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 含むs both his
在庫／株s of unfinished goods or working 資本／首都 and his 在庫／株s of
finished goods, having a value G.
Some part, however, of A + G - A1 will be
attributable, not to the activities of the period in question,
but to the 資本／首都 器具／備品 which he had at the beginning of the
period. We must, therefore, ーするために arrive at what we mean by
the income of the 現在の period, deduct from A + G - A1 a 確かな sum,
to 代表する that part of its value which has been (in some
sense) 与える／捧げるd by the 器具／備品 相続するd from the previous
period. The problem of defining income is solved as soon as we
have 設立する a 満足な method for calculating this deduction.
There are two possible 原則s for calculating it, each of
which has a 確かな significance;ｾone
of them in 関係 with 生産／産物, and the other in
関係 with 消費. Let us consider them in turn.
(i) The actual value G of the 資本／首都
器具／備品 at the end of the period is the 逮捕する result of the entrepreneur,
on the one 手渡す, having 持続するd and 改善するd it during the
period, both by 購入（する）s from other entrepreneurs and by work
done upon it by himself, and, on the other 手渡す, having exhausted
or depreciated it through using it to produce 生産（高）. If he had
decided not to use it to produce 生産（高）, there is,
にもかかわらず, a 確かな optimum sum which it would have paid him
to spend on 持続するing and 改善するing it. Let us suppose that, in
this event, he would have spent B' on its 維持／整備 and
改良, and that, having had this spent on it, it would have
been 価値（がある） G' at the end of the period. That is to say, G' - B' is the 最大限 逮捕する value
which might have been 保存するd from the previous period, if it
had not been used to produce A. The 超過 of this
可能性のある value of the 器具／備品 over G - A1 is the 手段
of what has been sacrificed (one way or another) to produce A.
Let us call this 量, すなわち
(G' - B') - (G - A1),
which 対策 the sacrifice of value 伴う／関わるd in the
生産／産物 of A, the 使用者 cost of A. 使用者
cost will be written U.
The 量 paid out by the entrepreneur to the other factors of
生産／産物 in return for their services, which from their point
of 見解（をとる） is their income, we will call the factor cost of A.
The sum of the factor cost F and the 使用者 cost U we
shall call the prime cost of the 生産（高） A.
We can then define the income
of the entrepreneur as 存在 the 超過 of the value of his
finished 生産（高） sold during the period over his prime cost. The
entrepreneur's income, that is to say, is taken as 存在 equal to
the 量, depending on his 規模 of 生産／産物, which he
endeavours to maximise, i.e. to his 甚だしい／１２ダース 利益（をあげる） in the ordinary sense of this 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語;ｾwhich
agrees with ありふれた sense. Hence, since the income of the 残り／休憩（する） of
the community is equal to the entrepreneur's factor cost,
aggregate income is equal to A - U.
Income, thus defined, is a 完全に unambiguous 量.
Moreover, since it is the entrepreneur's 期待 of the
超過 of this 量 over his 去っていく／社交的なs to the other factors
of 生産／産物 which he endeavours to maximise when he decides how
much 雇用 to give to the other factors of 生産／産物, it is
the 量 which is causally 重要な for 雇用.
It is 考えられる, of course, that G - A1 may 越える G' - B', so that 使用者 cost will be
消極的な. For example, this may 井戸／弁護士席 be the 事例／患者 if we happen to
choose our period in such a way that input has been 増加するing
during the period but without there having been time for the
増加するd 生産（高） to reach the 行う／開催する／段階 of 存在 finished and sold.
It will also be the 事例／患者, whenever there is 肯定的な 投資,
if we imagine 産業 to be so much 統合するd that
entrepreneurs make most of their 器具／備品 for themselves. Since,
however, 使用者 cost is only 消極的な when the entrepreneur has
been 増加するing his 資本／首都 器具／備品 by his own 労働, we can,
in an economy where 資本／首都 器具／備品 is 大部分は 製造（する）d by
different 会社／堅いs from those which use it, 普通は think of 使用者
cost as 存在 肯定的な. Moreover, it is difficult to conceive of
a 事例／患者 where ごくわずかの 使用者 cost associated with an
増加する in A, i.e. dU/dA, will be other than 肯定的な.
It may be convenient to について言及する here, in 予期 of the
latter part of this 一時期／支部, that, for the community as a whole,
the aggregate 消費 (C) of the period is
equal to S(A - A1), and the
aggregate 投資 (I) is equal to S(A1 - U). Moreover, U is the
individual entrepreneur's disinvestment (and - U
his 投資) in 尊敬（する）・点 of his own 器具／備品 排除的 of what he buys from other entrepreneurs. Thus in a 完全に
統合するd system (where A1 = 0)
消費 is equal to A and 投資 to - U, i.e. to G - (G' - B').
The slight 複雑化 of the above, through the introduction of
A1, is 簡単に 予定 to the desirability of
供給するing in a generalised way for the 事例／患者 of a 非，不，無-統合するd
system of 生産／産物.
その上に, the 効果的な 需要・要求する is 簡単に the
aggregate income (or proceeds) which the entrepreneurs 推定する／予想する to
receive, inclusive of the incomes which they will 手渡す on to the
other factors of 生産／産物, from the 量 of 現在の
雇用 which they decide to give. The aggregate 需要・要求する
機能（する）／行事 relates さまざまな hypothetical 量s of 雇用 to
the proceeds which their 生産（高）s are 推定する／予想するd to 産する／生じる; and the
効果的な 需要・要求する is the point on the aggregate 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事
which becomes 効果的な because, taken in 合同 with the
条件s of 供給（する）, it corresponds to the level of 雇用
which maximises the entrepreneur's 期待 of 利益（をあげる）.
This 始める，決める of 鮮明度／定義s also has the advantage that we can
equate the ごくわずかの proceeds (or income) to the ごくわずかの factor
cost; and thus arrive at the same sort of propositions relating
ごくわずかの proceeds thus defined to ごくわずかの factor costs as have
been 明言する／公表するd by those 経済学者s who, by ignoring 使用者 cost or
assuming it to be 無, have equated 供給（する） price
to ごくわずかの factor cost.
(ii) We turn, next, to the second of the 原則s referred
to above. We have dealt so far with that part of the change in
the value of the 資本／首都 器具／備品 at the end of the period as
compared with its value at the beginning which is 予定 to the voluntary
決定／判定勝ち（する）s of the entrepreneur in 捜し出すing to maximise his
利益（をあげる）. But there may, in 新規加入, be an involuntary loss
(or 伸び（る）) in the value of his 資本／首都 器具／備品, occurring for
推論する／理由s beyond his 支配（する）／統制する and irrespective of his 現在の
決定／判定勝ち（する）s, on account of (e.g.) a change in market values,
wastage by obsolescence or the mere passage of time, or
破壊 by 大災害 such as war or 地震. Now some
part of these involuntary losses, whilst they are 避けられない,
areｾ概して speakingｾnot 予期しない; such as losses through the
lapse of time irrespective of use, and also 'normal' obsolescence
which, as Professor Pigou 表明するs it, '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',
含むing, we may 追加する, those losses to the community as a whole
which are 十分に 正規の／正選手 to be 一般的に regarded as
'insurable 危険s'. Let us ignore for the moment the fact that the
量 of the 推定する／予想するd loss depends on when the 期待 is
assumed to be でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるd, and let us call the 価値低下 of the
器具／備品, which is involuntary but not 予期しない, i.e. the
超過 of the 推定する／予想するd 価値低下 over the 使用者 cost, the 補足の
cost, which will be written V. It is, perhaps, hardly
necessary to point out that this 鮮明度／定義 is not the same as
Marshall's 鮮明度／定義 of 補足の cost, though the
underlying idea, すなわち, of 取引，協定ing with that part of the
推定する／予想するd 価値低下 which does not enter into prime cost, is
類似の.
In reckoning, therefore, the 逮捕する income and the 逮捕する
利益（をあげる） of the entrepreneur it is usual to deduct the
概算の 量 of the 補足の cost from his income and
甚だしい／１２ダース 利益（をあげる） as defined above. For the psychological 影響 on
the entrepreneur, when he is considering what he is 解放する／自由な to spend
and to save, of the 補足の cost is 事実上 the same as
though it （機の）カム off his 甚だしい／１２ダース 利益（をあげる）. In his capacity as a 生産者
deciding whether or not to use the 器具／備品, prime cost and
甚だしい／１２ダース 利益（をあげる）, as defined above, are the 重要な 概念s. But
in his capacity as a 消費者 the 量 of the
補足の cost 作品 on his mind in the same way as if it
were a part of the prime cost. Hence we shall not only come
nearest to ありふれた usage but will also arrive at a 概念 which
is 関連した to the 量 of 消費, if, in defining
aggregate 逮捕する income, we deduct the 補足の cost 同様に as
the 使用者 cost, so that aggregate 逮捕する income is equal to A - U - V.
There remains the change in the value of the 器具／備品, 予定 to
unforeseen changes in market values, exceptional obsolescence or
破壊 by 大災害, which is both involuntary andｾin a 幅の広い senseｾunforeseen.
The actual loss under this 長，率いる, which we 無視（する） even in
reckoning 逮捕する income and 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金 to 資本／首都 account, may be called
the windfall loss.
The causal significance of 逮捕する income lies in the
psychological 影響（力） of the magnitude of V on the
量 of 現在の 消費, since 逮捕する income is what we
suppose the ordinary man to reckon his 利用できる income to be
when he is deciding how much to spend on 現在の 消費.
This is not, of course, the only factor of which he takes account
when he is deciding how much to spend. It makes a かなりの
difference, for example, how much windfall 伸び（る） or loss he is
making on 資本／首都 account. But there is a difference between the
補足の cost and a windfall loss in that changes in the
former are apt to 影響する／感情 him in just the same way as changes in his 甚だしい／１２ダース 利益（をあげる）. It is
the 超過 of the proceeds of the 現在の 生産（高） over the sum of
the prime cost and the 補足の cost which is 関連した to
the entrepreneur's 消費; 反して, although the windfall
loss (or 伸び（る）) enters into his 決定／判定勝ち（する）s, it does not enter into
them on the same 規模ｾa given
windfall loss does not have the same 影響 as an equal
補足の cost.
We must now recur, however, to the point that the line between
補足の costs and windfall losses, i.e. between those
避けられない losses which we think it proper to debit to income
account and those which it is reasonable to reckon as a windfall
loss (or 伸び（る）) on 資本／首都 account, is partly a 従来の or
psychological one, depending on what are the 一般的に 受託するd
基準 for 見積（る）ing the former. For no unique 原則 can
be 設立するd for the estimation of 補足の cost, and its
量 will depend on our choice of an accounting method. The
推定する／予想するd value of the 補足の cost, when the 器具／備品 was
初めは produced, is a 限定された 量. But if it is
re-概算の subsequently, its 量 over the 残りの人，物 of the
life of the 器具／備品 may have changed as a result of a change in
the 合間 in our 期待s; the windfall 資本／首都 loss 存在
the 割引d value of the difference between the former and the
改訂するd 期待 of the 見込みのある 一連の U + V.
It is a 広範囲にわたって 認可するd 原則 of 商売／仕事 accounting,
是認するd by the Inland 歳入 当局, to 設立する a 人物／姿／数字
for the sum of the 補足の cost and the 使用者 cost when the
器具／備品 is acquired and to 持続する this unaltered during the
life of the 器具／備品, irrespective of その後の changes in
期待. In this 事例／患者 the 補足の cost over any period
must be taken as the 超過 of this predetermined 人物／姿／数字 over the
actual 使用者 cost. This has the advantage of 確実にするing that the
windfall 伸び（る） or loss shall be 無 over the life of the 器具／備品 taken as a whole. But it is also reasonable in
確かな circumstances to recalculate the allowance for
補足の cost on the basis of 現在の values and
期待s at an 独断的な accounting interval, e.g. 毎年.
商売／仕事 men in fact 異なる as to which course they 可決する・採択する. It may
be convenient to call the 初期の 期待 of 補足の
cost when the 器具／備品 is first acquired the basic
補足の cost, and the same 量 recalculated up to
date on the basis of 現在の values and 期待s the 現在の
補足の cost.
Thus we cannot get closer to a quantitative 鮮明度／定義 of
補足の cost than that it 構成するs those deductions from
his income which a typical entrepreneur makes before reckoning
what he considers his 逮捕する income for the 目的 of 宣言するing a
（株主への）配当 (in the 事例／患者 of a 会社／団体) or of deciding the 規模
of his 現在の 消費 (in the 事例／患者 of an individual). Since
windfall 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金s on 資本／首都 account are not going to be 支配するd out
of the picture, it is 明確に better, in 事例／患者 of 疑問, to 割り当てる
an item to 資本／首都 account, and to 含む in 補足の cost
only what rather 明白に belongs there. For any overloading of
the former can be 訂正するd by 許すing it more 影響（力） on the
率 of 現在の 消費 than it would さもなければ have had.
It will be seen that our 鮮明度／定義 of 逮捕する income comes very
の近くに to Marshall's 鮮明度／定義 of income, when he decided to take
避難 in the practices of the Income 税金 Commissioners andｾ概して speaking to regard as income
whatever they, with their experience, choose to 扱う／治療する as such.
For the fabric of their 決定／判定勝ち（する）s can be regarded as the result
of the most careful and 広範囲にわたる 調査 which is
利用できる, to 解釈する／通訳する what, in practice, it is usual to 扱う／治療する
as 逮捕する income. It also corresponds to the money value of
Professor Pigou's most 最近の 鮮明度／定義 of the 国家の
（株主への）配当.
It remains true, however, that 逮捕する income, 存在 based on an
equivocal criterion which different 当局 might 解釈する／通訳する
異なって, is not perfectly （疑いを）晴らす-削減（する）. Professor Hayek, for
example, has 示唆するd that an individual owner of 資本／首都 goods
might 目的（とする） at keeping the income he derives from his 所有／入手s
constant, so that he would not feel himself 解放する／自由な to spend his
income on 消費 until he had 始める，決める aside 十分な to 相殺する
any 傾向 of his 投資-income to 拒絶する／低下する for whatever
推論する／理由.
I 疑問 if such an individual 存在するs; but, 明白に, no
theoretical 反対 can be raised against this deduction as
供給するing a possible psychological criterion of 逮捕する income. But
when Professor Hayek infers that the 概念s of saving and
投資 を煩う a corresponding vagueness, he is only
権利 if he means 逮捕する saving and 逮捕する 投資.
The saving and the 投資, which are 関連した to the theory
of 雇用, are （疑いを）晴らす of this defect, and are 有能な of
客観的な 鮮明度／定義, as we have shown above.
Thus it is a mistake to put all the 強調 on 逮捕する income,
which is only 関連した to 決定／判定勝ち（する）s 関心ing 消費, and
is, moreover, only separated from さまざまな other factors 影響する／感情ing
消費 by a 狭くする line; and to overlook (as has been usual)
the 概念 of income proper, which is the 概念
関連した to 決定／判定勝ち（する）s 関心ing 現在の 生産／産物 and is やめる
unambiguous.
The above 鮮明度／定義s of income and of 逮捕する income are ーするつもりであるd
to 適合する as closely as possible to ありふれた usage. It is
necessary, therefore, that I should at once remind the reader
that in my Treatise on Money I defined income in a special
sense. The peculiarity in my former 鮮明度／定義 関係のある to that
part of aggregate income which accrues to the entrepreneurs,
since I took neither the 利益（をあげる） (whether 甚だしい／１２ダース or 逮捕する) 現実に
realised from their 現在の 操作／手術s nor the 利益（をあげる） which they
推定する／予想するd when they decided to 請け負う their 現在の 操作／手術s, but in some sense (not, as I
now think, 十分に defined if we 許す for the 可能性
of changes in the 規模 of 生産（高）) a normal or equilibrium
利益（をあげる）; with the result that on this 鮮明度／定義 saving 越えるd
投資 by the 量 of the 超過 of normal 利益（をあげる） over the
actual 利益（をあげる）. I am afraid that this use of 条件 has 原因（となる）d
かなりの 混乱, 特に in the 事例／患者 of the correlative
use of saving; since 結論s (relating, in particular, to the
超過 of saving over 投資), which were only valid if the
条件 雇うd were 解釈する／通訳するd in my special sense, have been
frequently 可決する・採択するd in popular discussion as though the 条件 were
存在 雇うd in their more familiar sense. For this 推論する／理由, and
also because I no longer 要求する my former 条件 to 表明する my
ideas 正確に, I have decided to discard themｾwith much 悔いる for the 混乱 which
they have 原因（となる）d.
II. Saving and 投資
まっただ中に the welter of 相違する usages of 条件, it is
agreeable to discover one 直す／買収する，八百長をするd point. So far as I know, everyone
is agreed that saving means the 超過 of income over
支出 on 消費. Thus any 疑問s about the meaning of
saving must arise from 疑問s about the meaning either of income
or of 消費. Income we have defined
above. 支出 on 消費 during any period must mean the
value of goods sold to 消費者s during that period, which throws
us 支援する to the question of what is meant by a 消費者-purchaser.
Any reasonable 鮮明度／定義 of the line between 消費者-purchasers
and 投資家-purchasers will serve us 平等に 井戸／弁護士席, 供給するd that
it is 終始一貫して 適用するd. Such problem as there is, e.g.
whether it is 権利 to regard the 購入（する） of a モーター-car as a
消費者-購入（する） and the 購入（する） of a house as an
投資家-購入（する）, has been frequently discussed and I have
nothing 構成要素 to 追加する to the discussion.
The criterion must 明白に correspond to where we draw the
line between the 消費者 and the entrepreneur. Thus when we have
defined A1 as the value of what one
entrepreneur has 購入（する）d from another, we have 暗黙に
settled the question. It follows that 支出 on 消費
can be unambiguously defined as S(A - A1), where A
is the total sales made during the period and A1
is the total sales made by one entrepreneur to another. In what
follows it will be convenient, as a 支配する, to omit and 令状 A
for the aggregate sales of all 肉親，親類d, A1 for
the aggregate sales from one entrepreneur to another and U
for the aggregate 使用者 costs of the entrepreneurs.
Having now defined both income and 消費,
the 鮮明度／定義 of saving, which is the 超過 of income
over 消費, 自然に follows. Since income is equal to A - U and 消費 is equal to A - A1, it follows that
saving is equal to A1 - U.
類似して, we have 逮捕する saving for the 超過 of 逮捕する
income over 消費, equal to A1 - U - V.
Our 鮮明度／定義 of income also leads at once to the 鮮明度／定義
of 現在の 投資. For we must mean by this the
現在の 新規加入 to the value of the 資本／首都 器具／備品 which has
resulted from the 生産力のある activity of the period. This is,
明確に, equal to what we have just defined as saving. For it is
that part of the income of the period which has not passed into
消費. We have seen above that as the result of the
生産／産物 of any period entrepreneurs 結局最後にはーなる with having sold
finished 生産（高） having a value A and with a 資本／首都 器具／備品
which has 苦しむd a 悪化／低下 手段d by U (or an
改良 手段d by - U
where U is 消極的な) as a result of having produced and
parted with A, after 許すing for 購入（する）s A1
from other entrepreneurs. During the same period finished 生産（高）
having a value A - A1
will have passed into 消費. The 超過 of A - U over A - A1, すなわち A1 - U, is the 新規加入 to 資本／首都 器具／備品 as a result of the 生産力のある activities of the
period and is, therefore, the 投資 of the period.
類似して A1 - U - V; which is the 逮捕する 新規加入
to 資本／首都 器具／備品, after 許すing for normal impairment in the
value of 資本／首都 apart from its 存在 used and apart from
windfall changes in the value of the 器具／備品 chargeable to
資本／首都 account, is the 逮捕する 投資 of the period.
Whilst, therefore, the 量 of saving is an 結果 of the
集団の／共同の behaviour of individual 消費者s and the 量 of
投資 of the 集団の／共同の behaviour of individual
entrepreneurs, these two 量s are やむを得ず equal, since
each of them is equal to the 超過 of income over 消費.
Moreover, this 結論 in no way depends on any subtleties or
peculiarities in the 鮮明度／定義 of income given above. 供給するd
it is agreed that income is equal to the value of 現在の 生産（高）,
that 現在の 投資 is equal to the value of that part of
現在の 生産（高） which is not 消費するd, and that saving is equal to
the 超過 of income over 消費ｾall
of which is conformable both to ありふれた sense and to the
伝統的な usage of the 広大な／多数の／重要な 大多数 of 経済学者sｾthe equality of saving and 投資
やむを得ず follows. In short-
Income = value of
生産（高） = 消費 + 投資.
Saving = income - 消費.
Therefore saving = 投資.
Thus any 始める，決める of 鮮明度／定義s which 満足させる the above 条件s
leads to the same 結論. It is only by 否定するing the 有効性，効力
of one or other of them that the 結論 can be 避けるd.
The equivalence between the 量 of saving and the
量 of 投資 現れるs from the 二国間の／相互の character of
the 処理／取引s between the 生産者 on the one 手渡す and, on the
other 手渡す, the 消費者 or the purchaser of 資本／首都 器具／備品.
Income is created by the value in 超過 of 使用者 cost which
the 生産者 得るs for the 生産（高） he has sold; but the whole of
this 生産（高） must 明白に have been sold either to a 消費者 or
to another entrepreneur; and each entrepreneur's 現在の
投資 is equal to the 超過 of the 器具／備品 which he has
購入（する）d from other entrepreneurs over his own 使用者 cost. Hence,
in the aggregate the 超過 of income over 消費, which we
call saving, cannot 異なる from the 新規加入 to 資本／首都 器具／備品
which we call 投資. And 類似して with 逮捕する saving and 逮捕する
投資. Saving, in fact, is a mere residual. The 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to
消費する and the 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to 投資する between them 決定する
incomes. Assuming that the 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to 投資する become 効果的な,
they must in doing so either curtail 消費 or 拡大する
income. Thus the 行為／法令／行動する of 投資 in itself cannot help 原因（となる）ing
the residual or 利ざや, which we call saving, to 増加する by a
corresponding 量.
It might be, of course, that individuals were so t黎e
mont馥 in their 決定／判定勝ち（する）s as to how much they themselves
would save and 投資する それぞれ, that there would be no point
of price equilibrium at which 処理／取引s could take place. In
this 事例／患者 our 条件 would 中止する to be applicable, since 生産（高）
would no longer have a 限定された market value, prices would find
no 残り／休憩（する）ing-place between 無 and infinity. Experience shows,
however, that this, in fact, is not so; and that there are habits
of psychological 返答 which 許す of an equilibrium 存在
reached at which the 準備完了 to buy is equal to the 準備完了
to sell. That there should be such a thing as a market value for
生産（高） is, at the same time, a necessary 条件 for
money-income to 所有する a 限定された value and a 十分な
条件 for the aggregate 量 which saving individuals
decide to save to be equal to the aggregate 量 which
投資するing individuals decide to 投資する.
Clearness of mind on this 事柄 is best reached, perhaps, by thinking ーに関して／ーの点でs of 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to 消費する (or to
差し控える from 消費するing) rather than of 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to save. A
決定／判定勝ち（する） to 消費する or not to 消費する truly lies within the 力／強力にする
of the individual; so does a 決定／判定勝ち（する） to 投資する or not to 投資する.
The 量s of aggregate income and of aggregate saving are the results
of the 解放する／自由な choices of individuals whether or not to 消費する
and whether or not to 投資する; but they are neither of them
有能な of assuming an 独立した・無所属 value resulting from a
separate 始める，決める of 決定／判定勝ち（する）s taken irrespective of the 決定／判定勝ち（する）s
関心ing 消費 and 投資. In 一致 with this
原則, the conception of the propensity to 消費する will,
in what follows, take the place of the propensity or disposition
to save.