一時期／支部 16
SUNDRY OBSERVATIONS ON THE NATURE OF CAPITAL
I
An 行為／法令／行動する of individual saving meansｾso
to speakｾa 決定／判定勝ち（する） not to have
dinner to-day. But it does not necessitate a 決定／判定勝ち（する） to have
dinner or to buy a pair of boots a week hence or a year hence or
to 消費する any 明示するd thing at any 明示するd date. Thus it
depresses the 商売／仕事 of 準備するing to-day's dinner without
刺激するing the 商売／仕事 of making ready for some 未来 行為／法令／行動する of
消費. It is not a substitution of 未来
消費-需要・要求する for 現在の 消費-需要・要求する,ｾit is a 逮捕する diminution of such 需要・要求する.
Moreover, the 期待 of 未来 消費 is so 大部分は
based on 現在の experience of 現在の 消費 that a
削減 in the latter is likely to depress the former, with the
result that the 行為／法令／行動する of saving will not 単に depress the price
of 消費-goods and leave the ごくわずかの efficiency of
存在するing 資本／首都 影響を受けない, but may 現実に tend to depress the
latter also. In this event it may 減ずる 現在の
投資-需要・要求する 同様に as 現在の 消費-需要・要求する.
If saving consisted not 単に in 棄権するing from 現在の
消費 but in placing 同時に a 明確な／細部 order for
未来 消費, the 影響 might indeed be different. For in
that 事例／患者 the 期待 of some 未来 産する／生じる from 投資
would be 改善するd, and the 資源s 解放（する）d from 準備するing for
現在の 消費 could be turned over to 準備するing for the 未来
消費. Not that they やむを得ず would be, even in this
事例／患者, on a 規模 equal to the 量 of 資源s
解放（する）d; since the 願望（する）d interval of 延期する might 要求する a
method of 生産／産物 so inconveniently 'roundabout' as to have an
efficiency 井戸／弁護士席 below the 現在の 率 of 利益／興味, with the
result that the favourable 影響 on 雇用 of the 今後
order for 消費 would eventuate not at once but at some
その後の date, so that the 即座の 影響 of the
saving would still be 逆の to 雇用. In any 事例／患者,
however, an individual 決定／判定勝ち（する） to save does not, in actual fact,
伴う／関わる the placing of any 明確な／細部 今後 order for
消費, but 単に the 取り消し of a 現在の order.
Thus, since the 期待 of 消費 is the only raison
d'黎re of 雇用, there should be nothing paradoxical in
the 結論 that a 減らすd propensity to 消費する has cet.
par. a depressing 影響 on 雇用.
The trouble arises, therefore, because the 行為／法令／行動する of saving
暗示するs, not a substitution for 現在の 消費 of some
明確な／細部 付加 消費 which 要求するs for its
準備 just as much 即座の 経済的な activity as would
have been 要求するd by 現在の 消費 equal in value to the
sum saved, but a 願望（する） for 'wealth' as such, that is for a
potentiality of 消費するing an 明示していない article at an
明示していない time. The absurd, though almost 全世界の／万国共通の, idea that
an 行為／法令／行動する of individual saving is just as good for 効果的な 需要・要求する
as an 行為／法令／行動する of individual 消費, has been fostered by the
fallacy, much more specious than the 結論 derived from it,
that an 増加するd 願望（する） to 持つ／拘留する wealth, 存在 much the same
thing as an 増加するd 願望（する） to 持つ／拘留する 投資s, must, by
増加するing the 需要・要求する for 投資s, 供給する a 刺激 to
their 生産／産物; so that 現在の 投資 is 促進するd by
individual saving to the same extent as 現在の 消費 is
減らすd.
It is of this fallacy that it is most difficult to disabuse
men's minds. It comes from believing that the owner of wealth
願望（する）s a 資本／首都-資産 as such, 反して what he really
願望（する）s is its 見込みのある 産する／生じる. Now, 見込みのある 産する／生じる
wholly depends on the 期待 of 未来 効果的な 需要・要求する in
relation to 未来 条件s of 供給（する）. If, therefore, an 行為／法令／行動する of
saving does nothing to 改善する 見込みのある 産する／生じる, it does nothing
to 刺激する 投資. Moreover, in order that an individual
saver may 達成する his 願望（する）d goal of the 所有権 of wealth, it
is not necessary that a new 資本／首都-資産 should be
produced wherewith to 満足させる him. The mere 行為／法令／行動する of saving by one
individual, 存在 two-味方するd as we have shown above, 軍隊s
some other individual to 移転 to him some article of wealth
old or new. Every 行為／法令／行動する of saving 伴う／関わるs a '軍隊d' 必然的な
移転 of wealth to him who saves, though he in his turn may
を煩う the saving of others. These 移転s of wealth do
not 要求する the 創造 of new wealthｾindeed,
as we have seen, they may be 活発に inimical to it. The
創造 of new wealth wholly depends on the 見込みのある 産する／生じる of
the new wealth reaching the 基準 始める，決める by the 現在の 率 of
利益／興味. The 見込みのある 産する／生じる of the ごくわずかの new 投資 is
not 増加するd by the fact that someone wishes to 増加する his
wealth, since the 見込みのある 産する／生じる of the ごくわずかの new
投資 depends on the 期待 of a 需要・要求する for a 明確な／細部
article at a 明確な／細部 date.
Nor do we 避ける this 結論 by arguing that what the owner
of wealth 願望（する）s is not a given 見込みのある 産する／生じる but the best
利用できる 見込みのある 産する／生じる, so that an 増加するd 願望（する） to own
wealth 減ずるs the 見込みのある 産する／生じる with which the 生産者s of
new 投資 have to be content. For this overlooks the fact
that there is always an 代案／選択肢 to the 所有権 of real
資本／首都-資産s, すなわち the 所有権 of money and 負債s; so that
the 見込みのある 産する／生じる with which the 生産者s of new 投資 have to be content cannot 落ちる
below the 基準 始める，決める by the 現在の 率 of 利益／興味. And the
現在の 率 of 利益／興味 depends, as we have seen, not on the
strength of the 願望（する） to 持つ／拘留する wealth, but on the strengths of
the 願望（する）s to 持つ／拘留する it in liquid and in illiquid forms
それぞれ, coupled with the 量 of the 供給（する） of wealth in
the one form 比較して to the 供給（する） of it in the other. If the
reader still finds himself perplexed, let him ask himself why,
the 量 of money bcing 不変の, a fresh 行為／法令／行動する of saving
should 減らす the sum which it is 願望（する）d to keep in liquid
form at the 存在するing 率 of 利益／興味.
確かな deeper perplexities, which may arise when we try to
調査（する） still その上の into the whys and wherefores, will be
considered in the next 一時期／支部.
II
It is much より望ましい to speak of 資本／首都 as having a 産する／生じる
over the course of its life in 超過 of its 初めの cost, than
as 存在 生産力のある. For the only 推論する／理由 why an 資産
申し込む／申し出s a prospect of 産する／生じるing during its life services having an
aggregate value greater than its 初期の 供給（する） price is because
it is 不十分な; and it is kept 不十分な because of the
競争 of the 率 of 利益／興味 on money. If 資本／首都 becomes
いっそう少なく 不十分な, the 超過 産する／生じる will 減らす, without its having
become いっそう少なく 生産力のあるｾat least in
the physical sense.
I sympathise, therefore, with the pre-classical doctrine that
everything is produced by 労働, 補佐官d by what used to be
called art and is now called technique, by natural 資源s
which are 解放する／自由な or cost a rent によれば their scarcity or
豊富, and by the results of past 労働, 具体的に表現するd in 資産s,
which also 命令（する） a price によれば their scarcity or
豊富. It is より望ましい to regard 労働, 含むing, of
course, the personal services of the entrepreneur and his
assistants, as the 単独の factor of 生産／産物, operating in a given
環境 of technique, natural 資源s, 資本／首都 器具／備品
and 効果的な 需要・要求する. This partly explains why we have been able
to take the 部隊 of 労働 as the 単独の physical 部隊 which we
要求する in our 経済的な system, apart from 部隊s of money and of
time.
It is true that some 非常に長い or roundabout 過程s are
肉体的に efficient. But so are some short 過程s. 非常に長い
過程s are not 肉体的に efficient because they are long.
Some, probably most, 非常に長い 過程s would be 肉体的に very
inefficient, for there are such things as spoiling or wasting
with time.
With a given 労働 軍隊 there is a 限定された 限界 to the
量 of 労働 具体的に表現するd in roundabout 過程s which can be
used to advantage. Apart from other considerations, there must be
a 予定 割合 between the 量 of 労働 雇うd in making
machines and the 量 which will be 雇うd in using them. The
ultimate 量 of value will not 増加する 無期限に／不明確に,
比較して to the 量 of 労働 雇うd, as the 過程s
可決する・採択するd become more and more roundabout, even if their physical
efficiency is still 増加するing. Only if the 願望（する） to 延期する
消費 were strong enough to produce a 状況／情勢 in which
十分な 雇用 要求するd a 容積／容量 of 投資 so 広大な／多数の／重要な as to
伴う／関わる a 消極的な ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都, would a
過程 become advantageous 単に because it was 非常に長い; in
which event we should 雇う 肉体的に inefficient 過程s,
供給するd they were 十分に 非常に長い for the 伸び（る） from
延期 to outweigh their inefficiency. We should in fact
have a 状況／情勢 in which short 過程s would have to be
kept 十分に 不十分な for their physical efficiency to
outweigh the disadvantage of the 早期に 配達／演説／出産 of their 製品.
A 訂正する theory, therefore, must be reversible so as to be able
to cover the 緩和するs of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都
corresponding either to a 肯定的な or to a 消極的な 率 of 利益／興味; and it
is, I think, only the scarcity theory 輪郭（を描く）d above which is
有能な of this.
Moreover there are all sorts of 推論する／理由s why さまざまな 肉親，親類d of
services and 施設s are 不十分な and therefore expensive
refatively to the 量 of 労働 伴う／関わるd. For example,
smelly 過程s 命令（する） a higher reward, because people will not
請け負う them さもなければ. So do risky 過程s. But we do not
工夫する a 生産性 theory of smelly or risky 過程s as
such. In short, not all 労働 is 遂行するd in 平等に
agreeable attendant circumstances; and 条件s of equilibrium
要求する that articles produced in いっそう少なく agreeable attendant
circumstances (characterised by smelliness, 危険 or the lapse of
time) must be kept 十分に 不十分な to 命令（する） a higher price.
But if the lapse of time becomes an agreeable attendant
circumstance, which is a やめる possible 事例／患者 and already 持つ／拘留するs
for many individuals, then, as I have said above, it is the short
過程s which must be kept 十分に 不十分な.
Given the optimum 量 of roundaboutness, we shall, of
course, select the most efficient roundabout 過程s which we
can find up to the 要求するd aggregate. But the optimum 量
itself should be such as to 供給する at the appropriate dates for
that part of 消費者s' 需要・要求する which it is 願望（する）d to defer. In
optimum 条件s, that is to say, 生産／産物 should be so
organised as to produce in the most efficient manner 両立できる
with 配達／演説／出産 at the dates at which 消費者s' 需要・要求する is 推定する／予想するd
to become 効果的な. It is no use to produce for 配達／演説／出産 at a
different date from this, even though the physical 生産（高） could
be 増加するd by changing the date of 配達／演説／出産;ｾexcept
in so far as the prospect of a larger meal, so to speak, induces
the 消費者 to 心配する or 延期する the hour of dinner. If,
after 審理，公聴会 十分な particulars of the meals he can get by 直す／買収する，八百長をするing
dinner at different hours, the 消費者 is 推定する／予想するd to decide in favour
of 8 o'clock, it is the 商売／仕事 of the cook to 供給する the best
dinner he can for service at that hour, irrespective of whether
7.30, 8 o'clock or 8.30 is the hour which would 控訴 him best if
time counted for nothing, one way or the other, and his only 仕事
was to produce the 絶対 best dinner. In some 段階s of
society it may be that we could get 肉体的に better dinners by
dining later than we do; but it is 平等に 考えられる in other
段階s that we could get better dinners by dining earlier. Our
theory must, as I have said above, be applicable to both
contingencies.
If the 率 of 利益／興味 were 無, there would be an optimum
interval for any given article between the 普通の／平均（する） date of input
and the date of 消費, for which 労働 cost would be a
最小限;ｾa shorter 過程 of
生産／産物 would be いっそう少なく efficient technically, whilst a longer
過程 would also be いっそう少なく efficient by 推論する／理由 of 貯蔵 costs
and 悪化／低下. If, however, the 率 of 利益／興味 越えるs
無, a new element of cost is introduced which 増加するs with
the length of the 過程, so that the optimum interval will be
縮めるd, and the 現在の input to 供給する for the 結局の
配達／演説／出産 of the article will have to be curtailed until the
見込みのある price has 増加するd 十分に to cover the
増加するd costｾa cost which will be
増加するd both by the 利益／興味 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金s and also by the 減らすd
efficiency of the shorter method of 生産／産物. Whilst if the
率 of 利益／興味 落ちるs below 無 (assuming this to be
technically possible), the opposite is the 事例／患者. Given the
見込みのある 消費者s' 需要・要求する, 現在の input to-day has to
compete, so to speak, with the 代案／選択肢 of starting input at a
later date; and, その結果, 現在の input will only be 価値（がある）
while when the greater cheapness, by 推論する／理由 of greater technical
efficiency or 見込みのある price changes, of producing later on
rather than now, is insufficient to 相殺する the smaller return
from 消極的な 利益／興味. In the 事例／患者 of the 広大な／多数の／重要な 大多数 of articles it
would 伴う／関わる 広大な／多数の／重要な technical inefficiency to start up
their input more than a very modest length of time ahead of their
見込みのある 消費. Thus even if the 率 of 利益／興味 is
無, there is a strict 限界 to the 割合 of 見込みのある
消費者s' 需要・要求する which it is profitable to begin 供給するing for
in 前進する; and, as the 率 of 利益／興味 rises, the 割合 of
the 見込みのある 消費者s' 需要・要求する for which it 支払う／賃金s to produce
to-day 縮むs pari passu.
III
We have seen that 資本／首都 has to be kept 不十分な enough in the
long-period to have a ごくわずかの efficiency which is at least equal
to the 率 of 利益／興味 for a period equal to the life of the
資本／首都, as 決定するd by psychological and institutional
条件s. What would this 伴う／関わる for a society which finds
itself so 井戸／弁護士席 equipped with 資本／首都 that its ごくわずかの efficiency
is 無 and would be 消極的な with any 付加 投資; yet
所有するing a 通貨の system, such that money will 'keep' and
伴う／関わるs ごくわずかの costs of 貯蔵 and 安全な 保護／拘留, with the
result that in practice 利益／興味 cannot be 消極的な; and, in
条件s of 十分な 雇用, 性質の／したい気がして to save?
If, in such circumstances, we start from a position of 十分な
雇用, entrepreneurs will やむを得ず make losses if they
continue to 申し込む／申し出 雇用 on a 規模 which will utilise the
whole of the 存在するing 在庫／株 of 資本／首都. Hence the 在庫／株 of
資本／首都 and the level of 雇用 will have to 縮む until the
community becomes so 貧窮化した that the aggregate of saving
has become 無, the 肯定的な saving of some individuals or
groups 存在 相殺する by the 消極的な saving of others. Thus for a
society such as we have supposed, the position of equilibrium,
under 条件s of laissez-faire, will be one in which
雇用 is low enough and the 基準 of life 十分に 哀れな to bring
貯金 to 無. More probably there will be a cyclical movement
一連の会議、交渉／完成する this equilibrium position. For if there is still room for
不確定 about the 未来, the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都
will occasionally rise above 無 主要な to a 'にわか景気', and in the
後継するing '低迷' the 在庫／株 of 資本／首都 may 落ちる for a time below
the level which will 産する／生じる a ごくわずかの efficiency of 無 in the
long run. Assuming 訂正する foresight, the equilibrium 在庫／株 of
資本／首都 which will have a ごくわずかの efficiency of 正確に 無
will, of course, be a smaller 在庫／株 than would correspond to 十分な
雇用 of the 利用できる 労働; for it will be the 器具／備品
which corresponds to that 割合 of 失業 which
確実にするs 無 saving.
The only 代案／選択肢 position of equilibrium would be given by
a 状況／情勢 in which a 在庫／株 of 資本／首都 十分に 広大な／多数の／重要な to
have a ごくわずかの efficiency of 無 also 代表するs an 量 of
wealth 十分に 広大な／多数の／重要な to satiate to the 十分な the aggregate
願望（する） on the part of the public to make 準備／条項 for the
未来, even with 十分な 雇用, in circumstances where no
特別手当 is obtainable in the form of 利益／興味. It would, however,
be an ありそうもない coincidence that the propensity to save in
条件s of 十分な 雇用 should become 満足させるd just at the
point where the 在庫／株 of 資本／首都 reaches the level where its
ごくわずかの efficiency is 無. If, therefore, this more favourable
可能性 comes to the 救助（する）, it will probably 施行される,
not just at the point where the 率 of 利益／興味 is 消えるing,
but at some previous point during the 漸進的な 拒絶する／低下する of the 率
of 利益／興味.
We have assumed so far an institutional factor which 妨げるs
the 率 of 利益／興味 from 存在 消極的な, in the 形態／調整 of money
which has ごくわずかの carrying costs. In fact, however,
institutional and psychological factors are 現在の which 始める，決める a
限界 much above 無 to the practicable 拒絶する／低下する in the 率 of
利益／興味. In particular the costs of bringing borrowers and 貸す人s
together and 不確定 as to the 未来 of the 率 of
利益／興味, which we have 診察するd above, 始める，決める a lower 限界, which
in 現在の circumstances may perhaps be as high as 2 or 2ｽ per
cent on long 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語. If this should 証明する 訂正する, the ぎこちない
可能性s of an 増加するing 在庫／株 of wealth, in 条件s
where the 率 of 利益／興味 can 落ちる no その上の under laissez-faire,
may soon be realised in actual experience Moreover if the 最小限
level to which it is practicable to bring the 率 of 利益／興味 is
appreciably above 無, there is いっそう少なく 見込み of the aggregate
願望（する） to 蓄積する wealth 存在 satiated before the 率 of
利益／興味 has reached its 最小限 level.
The 戦後の experiences of 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain and the 部隊d
明言する／公表するs are, indeed, actual examples of how an accumulation of
wealth, so large that its ごくわずかの efficiency has fallen more
速く than the 率 of 利益／興味 can 落ちる in the 直面する of the
勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing institutional and psychological factors, can
干渉する, in 条件s おもに of laissez-faire, with a
reasonable level of 雇用 and with the 基準 of life
which the technical 条件s of 生産／産物 are 有能な of
furnishing.
It follows that of two equal communities, having the same
technique but different 在庫／株s of 資本／首都, the community with the
smaller 在庫／株s of 資本／首都 may be able for the time 存在 to enjoy
a higher 基準 of life than the community with the larger
在庫／株; though when the poorer community has caught up the richｾas, 推定では, it 結局 willｾthen both alike will 苦しむ the 運命／宿命 of
Midas. This 乱すing 結論 depends, of course, on the
仮定／引き受けること that the propensity to 消費する and the 率 of
投資 are not deliberately controlled in the social 利益／興味
but are おもに left to the 影響（力）s of laissez-faire.
Ifｾfor whatever 推論する／理由ｾthe 率 of 利益／興味 cannot 落ちる as 急速な／放蕩な
as the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 would 落ちる with a 率 of
accumulation corresponding to what the community would choose to save at a 率 of 利益／興味 equal
to the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 in 条件s of 十分な
雇用, then even a 転換 of the 願望（する） to 持つ／拘留する wealth
に向かって 資産s, which will in fact 産する／生じる no 経済的な fruits
whatever, will 増加する 経済的な 井戸／弁護士席-存在. In so far as
millionaires find their satisfaction in building mighty mansions
to 含む／封じ込める their 団体／死体s when alive and pyramids to 避難所 them
after death, or, repenting of their sins, 築く cathedrals and
endow 修道院s or foreign 使節団s, the day when 豊富 of
資本／首都 will 干渉する with 豊富 of 生産（高） may be 延期するd.
'To dig 穴を開けるs in the ground', paid for out of 貯金, will
増加する, not only 雇用, but the real 国家の （株主への）配当 of
useful goods and services. It is not reasonable, however, that a
sensible community should be content to remain 扶養家族 on such
fortuitous and often wasteful mitigations when once we understand
the 影響（力）s upon which 効果的な 需要・要求する depends.
IV
Let us assume that steps are taken to 確実にする that the 率 of
利益／興味 is 一貫した with the 率 of 投資 which
corresponds to 十分な 雇用. Let us assume, その上の, that
明言する／公表する 活動／戦闘 enters in as a balancing factor to 供給する that the
growth of 資本／首都 器具／備品 shall be such as to approach
saturation-point at a 率 which does not put a disproportionate
重荷（を負わせる） on the 基準 of life of the 現在の 世代.
On such 仮定／引き受けることs I should guess that a 適切に run
community equipped with modern technical 資源s, of which the
全住民 is not 増加するing rapidJy, せねばならない be able to bring
負かす／撃墜する the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 in equilibrium
だいたい to 無 within a 選び出す／独身 世代; so that we
should 達成する the 条件s of a quasi-静止している community
where change and 進歩 would result only from changes in technique, taste, 全住民 and 会・原則s, with
the 製品s of 資本／首都 selling at a price 割合d to the
労働, etc., 具体的に表現するd in them on just the same 原則s as
治める／統治する the prices of 消費-goods into which 資本／首都-告発（する），告訴（する）／料金s
enter in an insignificant degree.
If I am 権利 in supposing it to be comparatively 平易な to make
資本／首都-goods so abundant that the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都
is 無, this may be the most sensible way of 徐々に getting
rid of many of the objectionable features of capitalism. For a
little reflection will show what enormous social changes would
result from a 漸進的な 見えなくなる of a 率 of return on
蓄積するd wealth. A man would still be 解放する／自由な to 蓄積する his
earned income with a 見解（をとる） to spending it at a later date. But his
accumulation would not grow. He would 簡単に be in the position
of ローマ法王's father, who, when he retired from 商売／仕事, carried a
chest of guineas with him to his 郊外住宅 at Twickenham and met his
世帯 expenses from it as 要求するd.
Though the rentier would disappear, there would still be room,
にもかかわらず, for 企業 and 技術 in the estimation of
見込みのある 産する／生じるs about which opinions could 異なる. For the
above relates まず第一に／本来 to the pure 率 of 利益／興味 apart from
any allowance for 危険 and the like, and not to the 甚だしい／１２ダース 産する／生じる
of 資産s 含むing the return in 尊敬（する）・点 of 危険. Thus unless
the pure 率 of 利益／興味 were to be held at a 消極的な 人物／姿／数字,
there would still be a 肯定的な 産する／生じる to 技術d 投資 in
individual 資産s having a doubtful 見込みのある 産する／生じる. 供給するd
there was some measurable 不本意 to 請け負う 危険, there
would also be a 肯定的な 逮捕する 産する／生じる from the aggregate of such
資産s over a period of time. But it is not ありそうもない that, in
such circumstances, the 切望 to 得る a 産する／生じる from doubtful
投資s might be such that they would show in the aggregate a
消極的な 逮捕する 産する／生じる.