一時期／支部 10
THE MARGINAL PROPENSITY TO CONSUME AND THE MULTIPLIER
We 設立するd in 一時期／支部 8 that 雇用 can only 増加する pari
passu with 投資 unless there is a change in the propensity to
消費する. We can now carry this line of thought a 行う／開催する／段階 その上の. For in
given circumstances a 限定された 割合, to be called the multiplier,
can be 設立するd between income and 投資 and, 支配する to 確かな
simplifications, between the total 雇用 and the 雇用 直接／まっすぐに
雇うd on 投資 (which we shall call the 最初の／主要な 雇用).
This その上の step is an integral part of our theory of 雇用, since
it 設立するs a 正確な 関係, given the propensity to 消費する,
between aggregate 雇用 and income and the 率 of 投資. The
conception of the multiplier was first introduced into 経済的な theory
by Mr R. F. Kahn in his article on 'The Relation of Home 投資 to
失業' (経済的な 定期刊行物, June 1931). His argument in this
article depended on the 根底となる notion that, if the propensity to 消費する
in さまざまな hypothetical circumstances is (together with 確かな other 条件s)
taken as given and we conceive the 通貨の or other public 当局 to
take steps to 刺激する or to retard 投資, the change in the 量
of 雇用 will be a 機能（する）／行事 of the 逮捕する change in the 量 of 投資;
and it 目的（とする）d at laying 負かす／撃墜する general 原則s by which to 見積（る） the
actual quantitative 関係 between an increment of 逮捕する 投資 and the increment of aggregate 雇用 which
will be associated with it. Before coming to the multiplier, however, it
will be convenient to introduce the conception of the ごくわずかの propensity
to 消費する.
I
The fluctuations in real income under consideration in this 調書をとる／予約する are
those which result from 適用するing different 量s of 雇用 (i.e.
of 労働-部隊s) to a given 資本／首都 器具／備品, so that real income 増加するs
and 減少（する）s with the number of 労働-部隊s 雇うd. If, as we assume
in general, there is a 減少（する）ing return at the 利ざや as the number of
労働-部隊s 雇うd on the given 資本／首都 器具／備品 is 増加するd, income
手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s will 増加する more than in 割合 to
the 量 of 雇用, which, in turn, will 増加する more than in 割合
to the 量 of real income 手段d (if that is possible) ーに関して／ーの点でs of
製品. Real income 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of 製品 and income 手段d in
条件 of 行う-部隊s will, however, 増加する and 減少（する） together (in the
short period when 資本／首都 器具／備品 is 事実上 不変の). Since, therefore,
real income, ーに関して／ーの点でs of 製品, may be incapable of 正確な 数値／数字による
測定, it is often convenient to regard income ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s
(Yw) as an 適する working 索引 of changes in real
income. In 確かな 状況s we must not overlook the fact that, in general,
Yw
増加するs and 減少（する）s in a greater 割合 than real income; but in
other 状況s the fact that they always 増加する and 減少（する） together
（判決などを）下すs them 事実上 interchangeable.
Our normal psychological 法律 that, when the real income of the community
増加するs or 減少（する）s, its 消費 will 増加する or 減少（する） but not
so 急速な／放蕩な, can, therefore, be translated¾not,
indeed, with 絶対の 正確 but 支配する to 資格s which are
obvious and can easily be 明言する／公表するd in a 正式に 完全にする fashion into the propositions
that DCw and DYw
have the same 調印する, but DYw
> DCw, where Cw
is the 消費 ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s. This is 単に a repetition
of the proposition already 設立するd in 一時期／支部
3 above. Let us define, then, dCw/dYw
as the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する.
This 量 is of かなりの importance, because it tells us how
the next increment of 生産（高） will have to be divided between 消費
and 投資. For DYw
= DCw + DIw,
where Cw and Iw are the increments
of 消費 and 投資; so that we can 令状 DYw
= kDIw, where
1 - 1/k is equal to the ごくわずかの propensity
to 消費する.
Let us call k the 投資 multiplier. It tells us that,
when there is an increment of aggregate 投資, income will 増加する
by an 量 which is k times the increment of 投資.
II
Mr Kahn's multiplier is a little different from this, 存在 what we
may call the 雇用 multiplier 指定するd by k', since
it 対策 the 割合 of the increment of total 雇用 which is associated
with a given increment of 最初の／主要な 雇用 in the 投資 産業s.
That is to say, if the increment of 投資 DIw
leads to an increment of 最初の／主要な 雇用 DN2
in the 投資 産業s, the increment of total 雇用 DN
= k'DN2.
There is no 推論する／理由 in general to suppose that k = k'.
For there is no necessary presumption that the 形態／調整s of the 関連した 部分s
of the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事s for different types of 産業 are such
that the 割合 of the increment of 雇用 in the one 始める，決める of 産業s
to the increment of 需要・要求する which has 刺激するd it will be the same as in the other 始める，決める of 産業s.
It is 平易な, indeed, to conceive of 事例／患者s, as, for example, where the
ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する is 広範囲にわたって different from the 普通の／平均（する） propensity,
in which there would be a presumption in favour of some 不平等 between
DYw/DN
and DIw/DN2,
since there would be very 相違する proportionate changes in the 需要・要求するs
for 消費-goods and 投資-goods それぞれ. If we wish to
take account of such possible differences in the 形態／調整s of the 関連した
部分s of the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事s for the two groups of 産業s
それぞれ, there is no difficulty in rewriting the に引き続いて argument
in the more generalised form. But to elucidate the ideas 伴う／関わるd, it will
be convenient to を取り引きする the 簡単にするd 事例／患者 where k = k'.
It follows, therefore, that, if the 消費 psychology of the community
is such that they will choose to 消費する, e.g. nine-tenths of an increment
of income, then the multiplier k is 10; and the total 雇用 原因（となる）d by
(e.g.) 増加するd public 作品 will be ten times the 最初の／主要な 雇用
供給するd by the public 作品 themselves, assuming no 削減 of 投資 in
other directions. Only in the event of the community 持続するing their
消費 不変の in spite of the 増加する in 雇用 and hence
in real income, will the 増加する of 雇用 be 制限するd to the 最初の／主要な
雇用 供給するd by the public 作品. If, on the other 手渡す, they 捜し出す
to 消費する the whole of any increment of income, there will be no point
of 安定 and prices will rise without 限界. With normal psychological
suppositions, an 増加する in 雇用 will only be associated with a
拒絶する／低下する in 消費 if there is at the same time a change in the propensity
to 消費する¾as the result, for instance,
of 宣伝 in time of war in favour of 制限するing individual 消費;
and it is only in this event that the 増加するd 雇用 in 投資
will be associated with an unfavourable repercussion on 雇用 in the
産業s producing for 消費.
This only sums up in a 決まり文句／製法 what should by now be obvious to the
reader on general grounds. An increment of 投資 ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s
cannot occur unless the public are 用意が出来ている to 増加する their 貯金 in
条件 of 行う-部隊s. Ordinarily speaking, the public will not do this unless
their aggregate income ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s is 増加するing. Thus their
成果／努力 to 消費する a part of their 増加するd incomes will 刺激する 生産（高）
until the new level (and 配当) of incomes 供給するs a 利ざや of
saving 十分な to correspond to the 増加するd 投資. The multiplier
tells us by how much their 雇用 has to be 増加するd to 産する／生じる an 増加する
in real income 十分な to induce them to do the necessary extra saving,
and is a 機能（する）／行事 of their psychological propensities. If saving is the pill and 消費 is the jam, the extra jam has to
be 割合d to the size of the 付加 pill. Unless the psychological propensities of the public
are different from what we are supposing, we have here 設立するd the
法律 that 増加するd 雇用 for 投資 must やむを得ず 刺激する
the 産業s producing for 消費 and thus lead to a total 増加する
of 雇用 which is a 多重の of the 最初の／主要な 雇用 要求するd by
the 投資 itself.
It follows from the above that, if the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する
is not far short of まとまり, small fluctuations in 投資 will lead to
wide fluctuations in 雇用; but, at the same time, a comparatively
small increment of 投資 will lead to 十分な 雇用. If, on the
other 手渡す, the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する is not much above 無,
small fluctuations in 投資 will lead to 対応して small fluctuations
in 雇用; but, at the same time, it may 要求する a large increment
of 投資 to produce 十分な 雇用. In the former 事例／患者 involuntary
失業 would be an easily 治療（薬）d malady, though liable to be troublesome
if it is 許すd to develop. In the latter 事例／患者, 雇用 may be いっそう少なく
variable but liable to settle 負かす／撃墜する at a low level and to 証明する recalcitrant
to any but the most 激烈な 治療（薬）s. In actual fact the ごくわずかの propensity
to 消費する seems to 嘘（をつく） somewhere between these two extremes, though much
nearer to まとまり than to 無; with the result that we have, in a sense,
the worst of both worlds, fluctuations in 雇用 存在 かなりの
and, at the same time, the increment in 投資 要求するd to produce
十分な 雇用 存在 too 広大な／多数の／重要な to be easily 扱うd. Unfortunately the
fluctuations have been 十分な to 妨げる the nature of the malady from
存在 obvious, whilst its severity is such that it cannot be 治療（薬）d unless
its nature is understood.
When 十分な 雇用 is reached, any 試みる／企てる to 増加する 投資
still その上の will 始める，決める up a 傾向 in money-prices to rise without 限界,
irrespective of the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する; i.e. we shall have reached a 明言する／公表する of true インフレーション. Up to this point, however, rising prices will be associated with an 増加するing
aggregate real income.
III
We have been 取引，協定ing so far with a 逮捕する increment of 投資.
If, therefore, we wish to 適用する the above without 資格 to the
影響 of (e.g.) 増加するd public 作品, we have to assume that there is
no 相殺する through 減少（する）d 投資 in other directions,¾and
also, of course, no associated change in the propensity of the community
to 消費する. Mr Kahn was おもに 関心d in the article referred to above
in considering what 相殺するs we せねばならない take into account as likely to
be important, and in 示唆するing quantitative 見積（る）s. For in an actual
事例／患者 there are several factors besides some 明確な／細部 増加する of 投資
of a given 肉親，親類d which enter into the final result. If, for example, a 政府
雇うs 100,000 付加 men on public 作品, and if the multiplier (as
defined above) is 4, it is not 安全な to assume that aggregate 雇用
will 増加する by 400,000. For the new 政策 may have 逆の reactions
on 投資 in other directions.
It would seem (に引き続いて Mr Kahn) that the に引き続いて are likely in a
modern community to be the factors which it is most important not to overlook
(though the first two will not be fully intelligible until after 調書をとる／予約する IV
has been reached):
(i) The method of 財政／金融ing the 政策 and the 増加するd working
cash, 要求するd by the 増加するd 雇用 and the associated rise of prices,
may have the 影響 of 増加するing the 率 of 利益／興味 and so retarding
投資 in other directions, unless the 通貨の 当局 takes steps
to the contrary; whilst, at the same time, the 増加するd cost of 資本／首都
goods will 減ずる their ごくわずかの efficiency to the 私的な 投資家, and this will 要求する an actual 落ちる in the 率 of 利益／興味
to 相殺する it.
(ii) With the 混乱させるd psychology which often 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるs, the 政府
programme may, through its 影響 on '信用／信任', 増加する liquidity-preference
or 減らす the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都, which, again, may retard
other 投資 unless 対策 are taken to 相殺する it.
(iii) In an open system with foreign-貿易（する） relations, some part
of the multiplier of the 増加するd 投資 will accrue to the 利益
of 雇用 in foreign countries, since a 割合 of the 増加するd
消費 will 減らす our own country's favourable foreign balance;
so that, if we consider only the 影響 on 国内の 雇用 as 際立った
from world 雇用, we must 減らす the 十分な 人物／姿／数字 of the multiplier.
On the other 手渡す our own country may 回復する a 部分 of this 漏れ
through favourable repercussions 予定 to the 活動／戦闘 of the multiplier in
the foreign country in 増加するing its 経済的な activity.
その上に, if we are considering changes of a 相当な 量,
we have to 許す for a 進歩／革新的な change in the ごくわずかの propensity to
消費する, as the position of the 利ざや is 徐々に 転換d; and hence
in the multiplier. The ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する is not constant for
all levels of 雇用, and it is probable that there will be, as a 支配する,
a 傾向 for it to 減らす as 雇用 増加するs; when real income
増加するs, that is to say, the community will wish to 消費する a 徐々に
減らすing 割合 of it.
There are also other factors, over and above the 操作／手術 of the general
支配する Just について言及するd, which may operate to 修正する the ごくわずかの propensity
to 消費する, and hence the multiplier; and these other factors seem likely,
as a 支配する, to accentuate the 傾向 of the general 支配する rather than to
相殺する jt. For, in the first place, the 増加する of 雇用 will tend,
借りがあるing
to the 影響 of 減らすing returns in the short period, to 増加する
the 割合 of aggregate income which accrues to the entrepreneurs,
whose individual ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する is probably いっそう少なく than the
普通の／平均（する） for the community as a whole. In the second place, 失業
is likely to be associated with 消極的な saving in 確かな ４半期/4分の1s, 私的な
or public, because the 失業した may be living either on the 貯金 of
themselves and their friends or on public 救済 which is partly 財政／金融d
out of 貸付金s; with the result that re-雇用 will 徐々に 減らす
these particular 行為／法令／行動するs of 消極的な saving and 減ずる, therefore, the ごくわずかの
propensity to 消費する more 速く than would have occurred from an equal
増加する in the community's real income accruing in different circumstances.
In any 事例／患者, the multiplier is likely to be greater for a small 逮捕する
increment of 投資 than for a large increment; so that, where 相当な
changes are in 見解（をとる）, we must be guided by the 普通の／平均（する） value of the multiplier
based on the 普通の／平均（する） ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する over the 範囲 in question.
Mr Kahn has 診察するd the probable quantitative result of such factors
as these in 確かな hypothetical special 事例／患者s. But, 明確に, it is not
possible to carry any generalisation very far. One can only say, for example,
that a typical modern community would probably tend to 消費する not much
いっそう少なく than 80 per cent of any increment of real income, if it were a の近くにd
system with the 消費 of the 失業した paid for by 移転s from
the 消費 of other 消費者s, so that the multiplier after 許すing
for 相殺するs would not be much いっそう少なく than 5. In a country, however, where
foreign 貿易（する） accounts for, say, 20 per cent of 消費 and where the
失業した receive out of 貸付金s or their 同等（の） up to, say, 50 per
cent of their normal 消費 when in work, the multiplier may 落ちる
as low as 2 or 3 times the 雇用 供給するd by a 明確な／細部 new 投資. Thus a given fluctuation of 投資
will be associated with a much いっそう少なく violent fluctuation of 雇用 in
a country in which foreign 貿易（する） plays a large part and 失業 救済
is 財政／金融d on a larger 規模 out of borrowing (as was the 事例／患者, e.g. in
広大な／多数の／重要な Britain in 1931), than in a country in which these factors are いっそう少なく
important (as in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs in 1932).
It is, however, to the general 原則 of the multiplier to which
we have to look for an explanation of how fluctuations in the 量 of
投資, which are a comparatively small 割合 of the 国家の
income, are 有能な of 生成するing fluctuations in aggregate 雇用
and income so much greater in amplitude than themselves.
IV
The discussion has been carried on, so far, on the basis of a change
in aggregate 投資 which has been foreseen 十分に in 前進する
for the 消費 産業s to 前進する
pari passu with the 資本／首都-goods
産業s without more 騒動 to the price of 消費-goods than
is consequential, in 条件s of 減少（する）ing returns, on an 増加する in
the 量 which is produced.
In general, however, we have to take account of the 事例／患者 where the 率先
comes from an 増加する in the 生産（高） of the 資本／首都-goods 産業s which
was not fully foreseen. It is obvious that an 率先 of this description
only produces its 十分な 影響 on 雇用 over a period of time. I have
設立する, however, in discussion that this obvious fact often gives rise to
some 混乱 between the 論理（学）の theory of the multiplier, which 持つ／拘留するs
good continuously, without time-lag, at all moments of time, and the consequences
of an 拡大 in the 資本／首都-goods 産業s which take 漸進的な 影響,
支配する to time-lag and only after an interval.
The 関係 between these two things can be （疑いを）晴らすd up by pointing
out, firstly that an unforeseen, or imperfectly foreseen, 拡大 in
the 資本／首都-goods 産業s does not have an instantaneous 影響 of equal
量 on the aggregate of 投資 but 原因（となる）s a 漸進的な 増加する of
the latter; and, secondly, that it may 原因（となる） a 一時的な 出発 of the
ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する away from its normal value, followed, however,
by a 漸進的な return to it.
Thus an 拡大 in the 資本／首都-goods 産業s 原因（となる）s a 一連の
increments in aggregate 投資 occurring in 連続する periods over
an interval of time, and a 一連の values of the ごくわずかの propensity
to 消費する in these 連続する periods which 異なる both from what the
values would have been if the 拡大 had been foreseen and from what
they will be when the community has settled 負かす／撃墜する to a new 安定した level
of aggregate 投資. But in every interval of time the theory of the
multiplier 持つ／拘留するs good in the sense that the increment of aggregate 需要・要求する
is equal to the 製品 of the increment of aggregate 投資 and the
multiplier as 決定するd by the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する.
The explanation of these two 始める，決めるs of facts can be seen most 明確に
by taking the extreme 事例／患者 where the 拡大 of 雇用 in the 資本／首都-goods
産業s is so 完全に unforeseen that in the first instance there is
no 増加する whatever in the 生産（高） of 消費-goods. In this event
the 成果／努力s of those newly 雇うd in the 資本／首都-goods 産業s to
消費する a 割合 of their 増加するd incomes will raise the prices of
消費-goods until a 一時的な equilibrium between 需要・要求する and 供給（する）
has been brought about partly by the high prices 原因（となる）ing a 延期
of 消費, partly by a 議席数是正 of income in favour of the saving
classes as an 影響 of the 増加するd 利益（をあげる）s resulting from the higher
prices, and partly by the higher prices 原因（となる）ing a depletion of 在庫／株s. So far as the balance is 回復するd by a 延期 of 消費
there is a 一時的な 削減 of the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する, i.e.
of the multiplier itself, and in so far as there is a depletion of 在庫／株s,
aggregate 投資 増加するs for the time 存在 by いっそう少なく than the increment
of 投資 in the 資本／首都-goods 産業s,¾i.e.
the thing to be multiplied does not 増加する by the 十分な increment of 投資
in the 資本／首都-goods 産業s. As time goes on, however, the 消費-goods
産業s adjust themselves to the new 需要・要求する, so that when the deferred
消費 is enjoyed, the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する rises 一時的に
above its normal level, to 補償する for the extent to which it 以前
fell below it, and 結局 returns to its normal level; whilst the 復古／返還
of 在庫／株s to their previous 人物／姿／数字 原因（となる）s the increment of aggregate 投資
to be 一時的に greater than the increment of 投資 in the 資本／首都-goods
産業s (the increment of working 資本／首都 corresponding to the greater
生産（高） also having 一時的に the same 影響).
The fact that an unforeseen change only 演習s its 十分な 影響 on
雇用 over a period of time is important in 確かな 状況s;¾in
particular it plays a part in the 分析 of the 貿易（する） cycle (on lines
such as I followed in my Treatise on Money). But it does not in
any way 影響する／感情 the significance of the theory of the multiplier as 始める，決める
前へ／外へ in this 一時期／支部; nor （判決などを）下す it inapplicable as an 指示する人（物） of the
total 利益 to 雇用 to be 推定する／予想するd from an 拡大 in the 資本／首都.
goods 産業s. Moreover, except in 条件s where the 消費
産業s are already working almost at capacity so that an 拡大
of 生産（高） 要求するs an 拡大 of 工場／植物 and not 単に the more 集中的な
雇用 of the 存在するing 工場／植物, there is no 推論する／理由 to suppose that more
than a 簡潔な／要約する interval of time nced elapse before 雇用 in the 消費
産業s is 前進するing pari passu with 雇用 in the 資本／首都-goods 産業s with the multiplier operating
近づく its normal 人物／姿／数字.
V
We have seen above that the greater the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する,
the greater the multiplier, and hence the greater the 騒動 to 雇用
corresponding to a given change in 投資. This might seem to lead
to the paradoxical 結論 that a poor community in which saving is
a very small 割合 of income will be more 支配する to violent fluctuations
than a 豊富な community where saving is a larger 割合 of income
and the multiplier その結果 smaller.
This 結論, however, would overlook the distinction between the
影響s of the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する and those of the 普通の／平均（する）
propensity to 消費する. For whilst a high ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する
伴う／関わるs a larger proportionate
影響 from a given 百分率 change
in 投資, the 絶対の
影響 will, にもかかわらず, be small
if the 普通の／平均（する） propensity to 消費する is also high. This may be illustrated
as follows by a 数値／数字による example.
Let us suppose that a community's propensity to 消費する is such that,
so long as its real income does not 越える the 生産（高） from 雇うing 5,000,000
men on its 存在するing 資本／首都 器具／備品, it 消費するs the whole of its income;
that of the 生産（高） of the next 100,000 付加 men 雇うd it 消費するs
99 per cent, of the next 100,000 after that 98 per cent, of the third 100,000
97 per cent and so on; and that 10,000,000 men 雇うd 代表するs 十分な
雇用. It follows from this that, when 5,000,000 + n 100,000
men are 雇うd, the multiplier at the 利ざや is 100/n, and [n(n
+ i)]/[2(50 + n)] per cent of the 国民所得 is 投資するd.
Thus when 5,200,000 men are 雇うd the multiplier is very large, すなわち
50, but 投資 is only a trifling 割合 of 現在の income, すなわち,
0.06 per cent; with the result that if 投資 落ちるs off by a large
割合, say about two-thirds, 雇用 will only 拒絶する／低下する to 5,100,000,
i.e. by about 2 per cent. On the other 手渡す, when 9,000,000 men are 雇うd,
the ごくわずかの multiplier is comparatively small, すなわち 2½, but 投資
is now a 相当な 割合 of 現在の income, すなわち, 9 per cent;
with the result that if 投資 落ちるs by two-thirds, 雇用 will
拒絶する／低下する to 6,900,000, すなわち, by 19 per cent. In the 限界 where 投資
落ちるs off to 無, 雇用 will 拒絶する／低下する by about 4 per cent in the former
事例／患者, 反して in the latter 事例／患者 it will 拒絶する／低下する by 44 per cent.
In the above example, the poorer of the two communities under comparison
is poorer by 推論する／理由 of under-雇用. But the same 推論する／理由ing 適用するs
by 平易な adaptation if the poverty is 予定 to inferior 技術, technique or
器具／備品. Thus whilst the multiplier is larger in a poor community, the
影響 on 雇用 of fluctuations in 投資 will be much greater
in a 豊富な community, assuming that in the latter 現在の 投資
代表するs a much larger 割合 of 現在の 生産（高）.
It is also obvious from the above that the 雇用 of a given number
of men on public 作品 will (on the 仮定／引き受けることs made) have a much larger
影響 on aggregate 雇用 at a time when there is 厳しい 失業,
than it will have later on when 十分な 雇用 is approached. In the above
example, if, at a time when 雇用 has fallen to 5,200,000, an 付加
100,000 men are 雇うd on public 作品, total 雇用 will rise to
6,400,000. But if 雇用 is already 9,000,000 when the 付加 100,000
men are taken on for public 作品, total 雇用 will only rise to 9,200,000.
Thus public 作品 even of doubtful 公共事業（料金）／有用性 may 支払う／賃金 for themselves over
and over again at a time of 厳しい 失業, if only from the 減らすd
cost of 救済 支出, 供給するd that we can assume that a smaller
割合 of income is saved when 失業 is greater; but they may
become a more doubtful proposition as a 明言する／公表する of 十分な 雇用 is approached.
その上に, if our 仮定／引き受けること is 訂正する that the ごくわずかの propensity
to 消費する 落ちるs off 刻々と as we approach 十分な 雇用, it follows
that it will become more and more troublesome to 安全な・保証する a その上の given
増加する of 雇用 by その上の 増加するing 投資. It should not
be difficult to 収集する a chart of the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する at
each 行う／開催する／段階 of a 貿易（する） cycle from the 統計（学） (if they were 利用できる)
of aggregate incorne and aggregate 投資 at 連続する dates. At 現在の,
however, our 統計（学） are not 正確な enough (or 収集するd 十分に
with this 明確な／細部 反対する in 見解（をとる）) to 許す us to infer more than 高度に
approximate 見積（る）s. The best for the 目的, of which I am aware, are
Mr Kuznets' 人物／姿／数字s for the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs (already referred to, p.103 above),
though they are, にもかかわらず, very 不安定な. Taken in 合同 with
見積（る）s of 国民所得 these 示唆する, for what they are 価値（がある）, both
a lower 人物／姿／数字 and a more stable 人物／姿／数字 for the 投資 multiplier than I should have 推定する／予想するd. If 選び出す／独身 years are taken in 孤立／分離,
the results look rather wild. But if they are grouped in pairs, the multiplier
seems to have been いっそう少なく than 3 and probably 公正に／かなり stable in the neighbourhood
of 2.5. This 示唆するs a ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する not 越えるing 60
to 70 per cent¾a 人物／姿／数字 やめる plausible
for the にわか景気, but surprisingly, and, in my judgment, improbably low for
the 低迷. It is possible, however, that the extreme 財政上の 保守主義
of 法人組織の／企業の 財政／金融 in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs, even during the 低迷, may account
for it. In other words, if, when 投資 is 落ちるing ひどく through
a 失敗 to 請け負う 修理s and 交替／補充s, 財政上の 準備／条項 is
made, にもかかわらず, in 尊敬（する）・点 of such wastage, the 影響 is to 妨げる
the rise in the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する which would have occurred
さもなければ. I 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑う that this factor may have played a 重要な part
in 悪化させるing the degree of the 最近の 低迷 in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs. On
the other 手渡す, it is possible that the 統計（学） somewhat overstate the
拒絶する／低下する in 投資, which is 申し立てられた／疑わしい to have fallen off by more than
75 per cent in 1932 compared with 1929, whilst 逮捕する '資本／首都 形式'
拒絶する／低下するd by more than 95 per cent;¾a
穏健な change in these 見積（る）s 存在 有能な of making a 相当な
difference to the multiplier.
VI
When involuntary 失業 存在するs, the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働
is やむを得ず いっそう少なく than the 公共事業（料金）／有用性 of the ごくわずかの 製品. Indeed it
may be much いっそう少なく. For a man who has been long 失業した some 手段 of
労働, instead of 伴う／関わるing disutility, may have a 肯定的な 公共事業（料金）／有用性. If
this is 受託するd, the above 推論する／理由ing shows how 'wasteful' 貸付金 支出
may にもかかわらず 濃厚にする the community on balance. Pyramid-building, 地震s, even wars may serve
to 増加する wealth, if the education of our statesmen on the 原則s
of the classical 経済的なs stands in the way of anything better.
It is curious how ありふれた sense, wriggling for an escape from absurd
結論s, has been apt to reach a preference for wholly
'wasteful'
forms of 貸付金 支出 rather than for partly
wasteful forms,
which, because they are not wholly wasteful, tend to be 裁判官d on strict
'商売／仕事' 原則s. For example, 失業 救済 財政／金融d by 貸付金s
is more readily 受託するd than the 財政／金融ing of 改良s at a 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金
below the 現在の 率 of 利益／興味; whilst the form of digging 穴を開けるs in
the ground known as gold-採掘, which not only 追加するs nothing whatever to
the real wealth of the world but 伴う／関わるs the disutility of 労働, is
the most 許容できる of all 解答s.
If the 財務省 were to fill old 瓶／封じ込めるs with banknotes, bury them at
suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface
with town rubbish, and leave it to 私的な 企業 on 井戸／弁護士席-tried 原則s
of laissez-faire to dig the 公式文書，認めるs up again (the 権利 to do so 存在
得るd, of course, by tendering for 賃貸し（する）s of the 公式文書，認める-耐えるing 領土),
there need be no more 失業 and, with the help of the repercussions,
the real income of the community, and its 資本／首都 wealth also, would probably
become a good 取引，協定 greater than it 現実に is. It would, indeed, be more
sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical
difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.
The analogy between this expedient and the goldmines of the real world is 完全にする. At periods when gold is 利用できる
at suitable depths experience shows that the real wealth of the world 増加するs
速く; and when but little of it is so 利用できる our wealth 苦しむs stagnation
or 拒絶する／低下する. Thus gold-地雷s are of the greatest value and importance to
civilisation. Just as wars have been the only form of large-規模 貸付金
支出 which statesmen have thought 正当と認められる, so gold-採掘 is
the only pretext for digging 穴を開けるs in the ground which has recommended
itself to 銀行業者s as sound 財政／金融; and each of these activities has played
its part in 進歩¾failing something
better. To について言及する a 詳細（に述べる）, the 傾向 in 低迷s for the price of gold
to rise ーに関して／ーの点でs of 労働 and 構成要素s 援助（する）s 結局の 回復, because
it 増加するs the depth at which gold-digging 支払う／賃金s and lowers the 最小限
grade of 鉱石 which is payable.
In 新規加入 to the probable 影響 of 増加するd 供給（する）s of gold on
the 率 of 利益／興味, gold-採掘 is for two 推論する／理由s a 高度に practical
form of 投資, if we are 妨げるd from 増加するing 雇用 by means
which at the same time 増加する our 在庫／株 of useful wealth. In the first
place, 借りがあるing to the 賭事ing attractions which it 申し込む／申し出s it is carried
on without too の近くに a regard to the 判決，裁定 率 of 利益／興味. In the second
place the result, すなわち, the 増加するd 在庫／株 of gold, does not, as in
other 事例／患者s, have the 影響 of 減らすing its ごくわずかの 公共事業（料金）／有用性. Since
the value of a house depends on its 公共事業（料金）／有用性, every house which is built
serves to 減らす the 見込みのある rents obtainable from その上の house-building
and therefore 少なくなるs the attraction of その上の 類似の 投資 unless
the 率 of 利益／興味 is 落ちるing pari passu. But the fruits of gold-採掘
do not を煩う this disadvantage, and a check can only come through
a rise of the 行う-部隊 ーに関して／ーの点でs of gold, which is not likely to occur
unless and until 雇用 is 大幅に better. Moreover, there is
no その後の 逆転する 影響 on account of 準備／条項 for 使用者 and 補足の costs, as in the 事例／患者 of いっそう少なく 持続する forms of
wealth.
古代の Egypt was doubly fortunate, and doubtless 借りがあるd to this its fabled
wealth, in that it 所有するd two activities, すなわち, pyramid-building as
井戸／弁護士席 as the search for the precious metals, the fruits of which, since
they could not serve the needs of man by 存在 消費するd, did not stale
with 豊富. The Middle Ages built cathedrals and sang dirges. Two pyramids,
two 集まりs for the dead, are twice as good as one; but not so two 鉄道s
from London to York. Thus we are so sensible, have schooled ourselves to
so の近くに a 外見 of 慎重な financiers, taking careful thought before
we 追加する to the '財政上の' 重荷（を負わせる）s of posterity by building them houses
to live in, that we have no such 平易な escape from the sufferings of 失業.
We have to 受託する them as an 必然的な result of 適用するing to the 行為／行う
of the 明言する／公表する the maxims which are best calculated to '濃厚にする' an individual
by enabling him to pile up （人命などを）奪う，主張するs to enjoyment which he does not ーするつもりである
to 演習 at any 限定された time.