一時期／支部 13
THE GENERAL THEORY OF THE RATE OF INTEREST
I
We have shown in 一時期／支部 11 that, whilst there are 軍隊s
原因（となる）ing the 率 of 投資 to rise or 落ちる so as to keep the
ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 equal to the 率 of 利益／興味, yet
the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 is, in itself; a different
thing from the 判決，裁定 率 of 利益／興味. The schedule of the
ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 may be said to 治める／統治する the 条件 on
which loanable 基金s are 需要・要求するd for the 目的 of new
投資; whilst the 率 of 利益／興味 治める／統治するs the 条件 on
which 基金s are 存在 現在／一般に 供給（する）d. To 完全にする our theory,
therefore, we need to know what 決定するs the 率 of 利益／興味.
In 一時期／支部 14 and its 虫垂 we shall consider the answers
to this question which have been given hitherto. 概して
speaking, we shall find that they make the 率 of 利益／興味 to
depend on the interaction of the schedule of the ごくわずかの
efficiency of 資本／首都 with the psychological propensity to save.
But the notion that the 率 of 利益／興味 is the balancing factor
which brings the 需要・要求する for saving in the 形態／調整 of new 投資
来たるべき at a iven 率 of 利益／興味 into equality with the
供給（する） of saving which results at that 率 of 利益／興味 from the
community's psychological propensity to save, breaks 負かす／撃墜する as soon
as we perceive that it is impossible to deduce the 率 of
利益／興味 単に from a knowledge of these two factors. What, then, is our own answer to this question?
II
The psychological time-preferences of an individual 要求する
two 際立った 始める，決めるs of 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to carry them out 完全に. The
first is 関心d with that 面 of time-preference which I
have called the propensity to 消費する, which, operating
under the 影響（力） of the さまざまな 動機s 始める，決める 前へ／外へ in 調書をとる／予約する III,
決定するs for each individual how much of his income he will
消費する and how much he will reserve in some form of
命令（する） over 未来 消費.
But this 決定／判定勝ち（する） having been made, there is a その上の
決定／判定勝ち（する） which を待つs him, すなわち, in what form he will
持つ／拘留する the 命令（する） over 未来 消費 which he has reserved,
whether out of his 現在の income or from previous 貯金. Does
he want to 持つ／拘留する it in the form of 即座の, liquid 命令（する） (i.e.
in money or its 同等（の）)? Or is he 用意が出来ている to part with
即座の 命令（する） for a 明示するd or 不明確な／無期限の period, leaving
it to 未来 market 条件s to 決定する on what 条件 he can,
if necessary, 変える deferred 命令（する） over 明確な／細部 goods into
即座の 命令（する） over goods in general? In other words, what is
the degree of his liquidity-preferenceｾwhere
an individual's liquidity-preference is given by a schedule of
the 量s of his 資源s, valued ーに関して／ーの点でs of money or of
行う-部隊s, which he will wish to 保持する in the form of money in
different 始める，決めるs of circumstances?
We shall find that the mistake in the 受託するd theories of the
率 of 利益／興味 lies in their 試みる／企てるing to derive the 率 of
利益／興味 from the first of these two 選挙権を持つ／選挙人s of
psychological time-preference to the neglect of the second; and
it is this neglect which we must endeavour to 修理.
It should be obvious that the 率 of 利益／興味 cannot be a return to saving or waiting as such. For if a man hoards
his 貯金 in cash, he earns no 利益／興味, though he saves just
as much as before. On the contrary, the mere 鮮明度／定義 of the
率 of 利益／興味 tells us in so many words that the 率 of
利益／興味 is the reward for parting with liquidity for a 明示するd
period. For the 率 of 利益／興味 is, in itself; nothing more than
the inverse 割合 between a sum of money and what can be
得るd for parting with 支配（する）／統制する over the money in 交流 for
a 負債
for a 明言する／公表するd period of time.
Thus the 率 of 利益／興味 at any time, 存在 the reward for
parting with liquidity, is a 手段 of the 不本意 of
those who 所有する money to part with their liquid 支配（する）／統制する over
it. The 率 of 利益／興味 is not the 'price' which brings into
equilibrium the 需要・要求する for 資源s to 投資する with the 準備完了
to 棄権する from 現在の 消費. It is the 'price' which
equilibrates the 願望（する） to 持つ／拘留する wealth in the form of cash with
the 利用できる 量 of cash;ｾwhich
暗示するs that if the 率 of 利益／興味 were lower, i.e. if the
reward for parting with cash were 減らすd, the aggregate
量 of cash which the public would wish to 持つ／拘留する would 越える
the 利用できる 供給（する）, and that if the 率 of 利益／興味 were
raised, there would be a 黒字／過剰 of cash which no one would be
willing to 持つ／拘留する. If this explanation is 訂正する, the 量 of
money is the other factor, which, in 合同 with liquidity-preference,
決定するs the actual 率 of 利益／興味 in given circumstances.
Liquidity-preference is a potentiality or 機能の 傾向,
which 直す／買収する，八百長をするs the 量 of money which the public will 持つ／拘留する when
the 率 of 利益／興味 is given; so that if r is the 率 of
利益／興味, M the 量 of money and L the
機能（する）／行事 of liquidity-preference, we have M = L(r).
This is where, and how, the 量 of money enters into the
経済的な 計画／陰謀.
At this point, however, let us turn 支援する and consider why such
a thing as liquidity-preference 存在するs. In this 関係 we can
usefully 雇う the 古代の distinction between the use of money
for the 処理／取引 of 現在の 商売／仕事 and its use as a 蓄える／店 of
wealth. As regards the first of these two uses, it is obvious
that up to a point it is 価値（がある） while to sacrifice a 確かな
量 of 利益／興味 for the convenience of liquidity. But, given
that the 率 of 利益／興味 is never 消極的な, why should anyone
prefer to 持つ／拘留する his wealth in a form which 産する／生じるs little or no
利益／興味 to 持つ／拘留するing it in a form which 産する／生じるs 利益／興味 (assuming,
of course, at this 行う／開催する／段階, that the 危険 of default is the same in
尊敬（する）・点 of a bank balance as of a 社債)? A 十分な explanation is
コンビナート／複合体 and must wait for 一時期／支部 15. There is, however, a
necessary 条件 failing which the 存在 of a
liquidity-preference for money as a means of 持つ／拘留するing wealth could
not 存在する.
This necessary 条件 is the 存在 of 不確定 as
to the 未来 of the 率 of 利益／興味, i.e. as to the コンビナート／複合体 of
率s of 利益／興味 for 変化させるing 成熟s which will 支配する at
未来 dates. For if the 率s of 利益／興味 判決，裁定 at all 未来
times could be foreseen with certainty, all 未来 率s of
利益／興味 could be inferred from the 現在の 率s of
利益／興味 for 負債s of different 成熟s, which would be
adjusted to the knowledge of the 未来 率s. For example, if 1dr
is the value ln the 現在の year 1 of ｣1 deferred r years
and it is known that ndr will
be the value in the year n of ｣1 deferred r years
from that date, we have
1dn + r
ndr = ｾｾｾｾ ;
1dn
whence it follows that the 率 at which any 負債 can be
turned into cash n years hence is given by two out of the
コンビナート／複合体 of 現在の 率s of 利益／興味. If the 現在の 率 of
利益／興味 is 肯定的な for 負債s of every 成熟, it must always
be more advantageous to 購入（する） a 負債 than to 持つ／拘留する cash as a
蓄える／店 of wealth.
If, on the contrary, the 未来 率 of 利益／興味 is uncertain
we cannot 安全に infer that ndr
will 証明する to be equal to 1dn + r / 1dn when
the time comes. Thus if a need for liquid cash may conceivably
arise before the expiry of n years, there is a 危険 of a
loss 存在 incurred in 購入（する）ing a long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 負債 and
subsequently turning it into cash, as compared with 持つ／拘留するing cash.
The actuarial 利益（をあげる） or mathematical 期待 of 伸び（る）
calculated in 一致 with the 存在するing probabilitiesｾif it can be so calculated, which is
doubtfulｾmust be 十分な to
補償する for the 危険 of 失望.
There is, moreover, a その上の ground for liquidity-preference
which results from the 存在 of 不確定 as to the 未来
of the 率 of 利益／興味, 供給するd that there is an organlsed
market for 取引，協定ing in 負債s. For different people will 見積（る）
the prospects 異なって and anyone who 異なるs from the
predominant opinion as 表明するd in market quotations may have a
good 推論する／理由 for keeping liquid 資源s ーするために 利益（をあげる）, if
he is 権利, from its turning out in 予定 course that the 1dr's
were in a mistaken 関係 to one another.
This is closely analogous to what we have already discussed at some length in 関係 with the ごくわずかの
efficiency of 資本／首都. Just as we 設立する that the ごくわずかの
efficiency of 資本／首都 is 直す／買収する，八百長をするd, not by the 'best' opinion, but by
the market valuation as 決定するd by 集まり psychology, so also
期待s as to the 未来 of the 率 of 利益／興味 as 直す／買収する，八百長をするd by
集まり psychology have their reactions on liquidity-preference;ｾbut with this 新規加入 that the
individual, who believes that 未来 率s of 利益／興味 will be
above the 率s assumed by the market, has a 推論する／理由 for keeping
actual liquid cash, whilst the individual who 異なるs from the market in the other
direction will have a 動機 for borrowing money for short
periods ーするために 購入（する） 負債s of longer 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語. The market
price will be 直す／買収する，八百長をするd at the point at which the sales of the
'耐えるs' and the 購入（する）s of the 'bulls' are balanced.
The three 分割s of liquidity-preference which we have
distinguished above may be defined as depending on (i) the
処理／取引s-動機, i.e. the need of cash for the 現在の
処理／取引 of personal and 商売／仕事 交流s; (ii) the
予防の-動機, i.e. the 願望（する） for 安全 as to the
未来 cash 同等（の） of a 確かな 割合 of total
資源s; and (iii) the 思索的な-動機, i.e. the 反対する of
安全な・保証するing 利益（をあげる） from knowing better than the market what the
未来 will bring 前へ／外へ. As when we were discussing the ごくわずかの
efficiency of 資本／首都, the question of the desirability of having
a 高度に organised market for 取引，協定ing with 負債s 現在のs us with
a 窮地. For, in the absence of an organised market,
liquidity-preference 予定 to the 予防の-動機 would be
大いに 増加するd; 反して the 存在 of an organised market
gives an 適切な時期 for wide fluctuations in liquidity-preference 予定
to the 思索的な-動機.
It may illustrate the argument to point out that, if the
liquidity-preferences 予定 to the 処理／取引s-動機 and the
予防の-動機 are assumed to 吸収する a 量 of cash
which is not very 極度の慎重さを要する to changes in the 率 of 利益／興味 as
such and apart from its reactions on the level of income, so that
the total 量 of money, いっそう少なく this 量, is 利用できる for
満足させるing liquidity-preferences 予定 to the 思索的な-動機,
the 率 of 利益／興味 and the price of 社債s have to be 直す／買収する，八百長をするd at
the level at which the 願望（する） on the part of 確かな individuals
to 持つ／拘留する cash (because at that level they feel 'bearish' of the
未来 of 社債s) is 正確に／まさに equal to the 量 of cash 利用できる
for the 思索的な-動機. Thus each 増加する in the 量 of
money must raise the price of 社債s 十分に to 越える the
期待s of some 'bull' and so 影響（力） him to sell his 社債
for cash and join the '耐える' 旅団. If, however, there is a
ごくわずかの 需要・要求する for cash from the 思索的な-動機 except for
a short 過度期の interval, an 増加する in the 量 of
money will have to lower the 率 of 利益／興味 almost forthwith,
in whatever degree is necessary to raise 雇用 and the
行う-部隊 十分に to 原因（となる） the 付加 cash to be
吸収するd by the 処理／取引s-動機 and the 予防の-動機.
As a 支配する, we can suppose that the schedule of
liquidity-preference relating the 量 of money to the 率
of 利益／興味 is given by a smooth curve which shows the 率 of
利益／興味 落ちるing as the 量 of money is 増加するd. For there
are several different 原因（となる）s all 主要な に向かって this result.
In the first place, as the 率 of 利益／興味 落ちるs, it is
likely, cet. par., that more money will be 吸収するd by
liquidity-preferences 予定 to the 処理／取引s-動機. For if the
落ちる in the 率 of 利益／興味 増加するs the 国民所得, the
量 of money which it is convenient to keep for 処理／取引s will be 増加するd more or いっそう少なく
proportionately to the 増加する in income; whilst, at the same
time, the cost of the convenience of plenty of ready cash in
条件 of loss of 利益／興味 will be 減らすd. Unless we 手段
liquidity-preference ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s rather than of money
(which is convenient in some 状況s), 類似の results follow if
the 増加するd 雇用 続いて起こるing on a 落ちる in the 率 of
利益／興味 leads to an 増加する of 給料, i.e. to an 増加する in
the money value of the 行う-部隊. In the second place, every 落ちる
in the 率 of 利益／興味 may, as we have just seen, 増加する the
量 of cash which 確かな individuals will wish to 持つ／拘留する
because their 見解（をとる）s as to the 未来 of the 率 of 利益／興味
異なる from the market 見解（をとる）s.
にもかかわらず, circumstances can develop in which even a large
増加する in the 量 of money may 発揮する a comparatively small
影響（力） on the 率 of 利益／興味. For a large 増加する in the
量 of money may 原因（となる） so much 不確定 about the 未来
that liquidity-preferences 予定 to the 予防の-動機 may be
強化するd; whilst opinion about the 未来 of the 率 of
利益／興味 may be so 全員一致の that a small change in 現在の 率s
may 原因（となる） a 集まり movement into cash. It is 利益／興味ing that the
安定 of the system and its sensitiveness to changes in the
量 of money should be so 扶養家族 on the 存在 of a variety
of opinion about what is uncertain. Best of all that we
should know the 未来. But if not, then, if we are to 支配（する）／統制する
the activity of the 経済的な system by changing the 量 of
money, it is important that opinions should 異なる Thus this
method of 支配（する）／統制する is more 不安定な in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs, where
everyone tends to 持つ／拘留する the same opinion at the same time, than in
England where differences of opinion are more usual.
III
We have now introduced money into our causal nexus for the
first time, and we are able to catch a first glimpse of the way
in which changes in the 量 of money work their way into the
経済的な system. If, however, we are tempted to 主張する that money
is the drink which 刺激するs the system to activity, we must
remind ourselves that there may be several slips between the cup
and the lip. For whilst an 増加する in the 量 of money may
be 推定する／予想するd, cet. par., to 減ずる the 率 of 利益／興味,
this will not happen if the liquidity-preferences of the public
are 増加するing more than the 量 of money; and whilst a
拒絶する／低下する in the 率 of 利益／興味 may be 推定する／予想するd, cet. par.,
to 増加する the 容積／容量 of 投資, this will not happen if the
schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 is 落ちるing more
速く than the 率 of の間の~t; and whilst an 増加する in the
容積／容量 of 投資 may be 推定する／予想するd, cet. par., to
増加する 雇用, this may not happen if the propensity to
消費する is 落ちるing off. Finally, if 雇用 増加するs, prices
will rise in a degree partly 治める／統治するd by the 形態／調整s of the
physical 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事s, and partly by the 義務／負債 of the
行う-部隊 to rise ーに関して／ーの点でs of money. And when 生産（高） has
増加するd and prices have risen, the 影響 of this on
liquidity-preference will be to 増加する the 量 of money
necessary to 持続する a given 率 of 利益／興味.
IV
Whilst liquidity-preference 予定 to the 思索的な-動機
corresponds to what in my Treatise on Money I called 'the
明言する／公表する of bearishness', it is by no means the same thing. For
'bearishness' is there defined as the 機能の 関係,
not between the 率 of 利益／興味 (or price of 負債s) and the
量 of money, but between the price of 資産s and 負債s,
taken together, and the 量 of money. This 治療, however, 伴う／関わるd a
混乱 between results 予定 to a change in the 率 of 利益／興味
and those 予定 to a change in the schedule of the ごくわずかの
efficiency of 資本／首都, which I hope I have here 避けるd.
V
The 概念 of hoarding may be regarded as a first
approximation to the 概念 of liquidity-preference.
Indeed if we were to 代用品，人 'propensity to hoard' for
'hoarding', it would come to 大幅に the same thing. But if
we mean by 'hoarding' an actual 増加する in cash-持つ／拘留するing, it is
an incomplete ideaｾand 本気で
誤って導くing if it 原因（となる）s us to think of 'hoarding' and
'not-hoarding' as simple 代案／選択肢s. For the 決定／判定勝ち（する） to hoard
is not taken 絶対 or without regard to the advantages
申し込む／申し出d for parting with liquidity;ｾit
results from a balancing of advantages, and we have, therefore,
to know what lies in the other 規模. Moreover it is impossible
for the actual 量 of hoarding to change as a result of
決定／判定勝ち（する）s on the part of the public, so long as we mean by
'hoarding' the actual 持つ／拘留するing of cash. For the 量 of hoarding
must be equal to the 量 of money (orｾon
some 鮮明度／定義sｾto the 量 of
money minus what is 要求するd to 満足させる the
処理／取引s-動機); and the 量 of money is not 決定するd
by the public. All that the propensity of the public に向かって
hoarding can 達成する is to 決定する the 率 of 利益／興味 at
which the aggregate 願望（する） to hoard becomes equal to the
利用できる cash. The habit of overlooking the relation of the 率
of 利益／興味 to hoarding may be a part of the explanation why
利益／興味 has been usually regarded as the reward of not-spending,
反して in fact it is the reward of not-hoarding.