一時期／支部 21
THE THEORY OF PRICES
I
So long as 経済学者s are 関心d with what is called the theory of
value, they have been accustomed to teach that prices are 治める／統治するd by the
条件s of 供給（する） and 需要・要求する; and, in particular, changes in ごくわずかの
cost and the elasticity of short-period 供給（する） have played a 目だつ
part. But when they pass in 容積／容量 II, or more often in a separate treatise,
to the theory of money and prices, we hear no more of these homely but
intelligible 概念s and move into a world where prices are 治める／統治するd by
the 量 of money, by its income-velocity, by the velocity of 循環／発行部数
比較して to the 容積／容量 of 処理／取引s, by hoarding, by 軍隊d saving,
by インフレーション and デフレ et hoc genus omne; and little or no 試みる／企てる
is made to relate these vaguer phrases to our former notions of the elasticities
of 供給（する） and 需要・要求する. If we 反映する on what we are 存在 taught and try
to rationalise it, in the simpler discussions it seems that the elasticity
of 供給（する） must have become 無 and 需要・要求する 比例する to the 量
of money; whilst in the more sophisticated we are lost in a 煙霧 where
nothing is （疑いを）晴らす and everything is possible. We have all of us become used
to finding ourselves いつかs on the one 味方する of the moon and いつかs
on the other, without knowing what 大勝する or 旅行 connects them, 関係のある,
明らかに, after the fashion of our waking and our dreaming lives.
One of the 反対するs of the foregoing 一時期／支部s has been to escape from
this 二塁打 life and to bring the theory of prices as a whole 支援する to の近くに
接触する with the theory of value. The 分割 of 経済的なs between the
theory of value and 配当 on the one 手渡す and the theory of money
on the other 手渡す is, I think, a 誤った 分割. The 権利 dichotomy is,
I 示唆する, between the theory of the individual 産業 or 会社／堅い and of
the rewards and the 配当 between different uses of a given 量
of 資源s on the one 手渡す, and the theory of 生産（高） and 雇用 as
a whole on the other 手渡す. So long as we 限界 ourselves to the 熟考する／考慮する
of the individual 産業 or 会社／堅い on the 仮定／引き受けること that the aggregate
量 of 雇うd 資源s is constant, and, provisionally, that the
条件s of other 産業s or 会社／堅いs are 不変の, it is true that
we are not 関心d with the 重要な 特徴 of money. But
as soon as we pass to the problem of what 決定するs 生産（高） and 雇用
as a whole, we 要求する the 完全にする theory of a 通貨の economy.
Or, perhaps, we might make our line of 分割 between the theory of
静止している equilibrium and the theory of 転換ing equilibrium¾meaning
by the latter the theory of a system in which changing 見解（をとる）s about the
未来 are 有能な of 影響（力）ing the 現在の 状況／情勢. For the importance
of money essentially flows from its 存在 a link between the 現在の and
the 未来. We can consider what 配当 of 資源s between
different uses will be 一貫した with equilibrium under the 影響（力）
of normal 経済的な 動機s in a world in which our 見解（をとる）s 関心ing the
未来 are 直す／買収する，八百長をするd and reliable in all 尊敬（する）・点s;¾with
a その上の 分割, perhaps, between an economy which is unchanging and
one 支配する to change, but where all things are foreseen from the beginning.
Or we can pass from this 簡単にするd propaedeutic to the problems of the
real world in which our previous 期待s are liable to 失望 and 期待s 関心ing the 未来 影響する／感情 what we do to-day.
It is when we have made this 移行 that the peculiar 所有物／資産／財産s of
money as a link between the 現在の and the 未来 must enter into our
計算／見積りs. But, although the theory of 転換ing equilibrium must やむを得ず
be 追求するd ーに関して／ーの点でs of a 通貨の economy, it remains a theory of value
and 配当 and not a separate 'theory of money'. Money in its 重要な
せいにするs is, above all, a subtle 装置 for linking the 現在の to the
未来; and we cannot even begin to discuss the 影響 of changing 期待s
on 現在の activities except in 通貨の 条件. We cannot get rid of money
even by 廃止するing gold and silver and 合法的な tender 器具s. So long
as there 存在するs any 持続する 資産, it is 有能な of 所有するing 通貨の
せいにするs and, therefore, of giving rise to the characteristic problems of a 通貨の
economy.
II
In a 選び出す／独身 産業 its particular price-level depends partly on the
率 of remuneration of the factors of 生産／産物 which enter into its
ごくわずかの cost, and partly on the 規模 of 生産（高）. There is no 推論する／理由 to
修正する this 結論 when we pass to 産業 as a whole. The general
price-level depends partly on the 率 of remuneration of the factors of
生産／産物 which enter into ごくわずかの cost and partly on the 規模 of 生産（高）
as a whole, i.e. (taking 器具／備品 and technique as given) on the 容積／容量
of 雇用. It is true that, when we pass to 生産（高） as a whole, the
costs of 生産／産物 in any 産業 partly depend on the 生産（高） of other
産業s. But the more 重要な change, of which we have to take account,
is the 影響 of changes in 需要・要求する
both on costs and on 容積／容量.
It is on the 味方する of 需要・要求する that we have to introduce やめる new ideas when
we are 取引，協定ing with 需要・要求する as a whole and no longer with the 需要・要求する for a 選び出す／独身 製品 taken in 孤立／分離, with
需要・要求する as a whole assumed to be 不変の.
III
If we 許す ourselves the simplification of assuming that the 率s
of remuneration of the different factors of 生産／産物 which enter into
ごくわずかの cost all change in the same 割合, i.e. in the same 割合
as the 行う-部隊, it follows that the general price-level (taking 器具／備品
and technique as given) depends partly on the 行う-部隊 and partly on the
容積／容量 of 雇用. Hence the 影響 of changes in the 量 of money
on the price-level can be considered as 存在 構内／化合物d of the 影響
on the 行う-部隊 and the 影響 on 雇用.
To elucidate the ideas 伴う／関わるd, let us 簡単にする our 仮定／引き受けることs still
その上の, and assume (1) that all 失業した 資源s are homogeneous and
interchangeable in their efficiency to produce what is 手配中の，お尋ね者, and (2)
that the factors of 生産／産物 entering into ごくわずかの cost are content
with the same money-行う so long as there is a 黒字／過剰 of them 失業した.
In this 事例／患者 we have constant returns and a rigid 行う-部隊, so long as
there is any 失業. It follows that an 増加する in the 量
of money will have no 影響 whatever on prices, so long as there is any
失業, and that 雇用 will 増加する in exact 割合 to
any 増加する in 効果的な 需要・要求する brought about by the 増加する in the 量
of money; whilst as soon as 十分な 雇用 is reached, it will thenceforward
be the 行う-部隊 and prices which will 増加する in exact 割合 to
the 増加する in 効果的な 需要・要求する. Thus if there is perfectly elastic 供給（する）
so long as there is 失業, and perfectly inelastic 供給（する） so soon
as 十分な 雇用 is reached, and if 効果的な 需要・要求する changes in the same
割合 as the 量 of money, the 量 theory of money can be enunciated as follows: 'So long as there is 失業, 雇用
will
change in the same 割合 as the 量 of money; and when there
is 十分な 雇用, prices will change in the same 割合 as the 量
of money'.
Having, however, 満足させるd tradition by introducing a 十分な number
of 簡単にするing 仮定／引き受けることs to enable us to enunciate a 量 theory
of money, let us now consider the possible 複雑化s which will in
fact 影響（力） events:
(1) 効果的な 需要・要求する will not change in exact 割合 to the
量 of money.
(2) Since 資源s are not homogeneous, there will be 減らすing,
and not constant, returns as 雇用 徐々に 増加するs.
(3) Since 資源s are not interchangeable, some 商品／必需品s
will reach a 条件 of inelastic 供給（する） whilst there are still 失業した
資源s 利用できる for the 生産／産物 of other 商品／必需品s.
(4) The 行う-部隊 will tend to rise, before 十分な 雇用 has
been reached.
(5) The remunerations of the factors entering into ごくわずかの cost
will not all change in the same 割合.
Thus we must first consider the 影響 of changes in the 量 of
money on the 量 of 効果的な 需要・要求する; and the 増加する in 効果的な
需要・要求する will, 一般に speaking, spend itself partly in 増加するing the
量 of 雇用 and partly in raising the level of prices. Thus
instead of constant prices in 条件s of 失業, and of prices
rising in 割合 to the 量 of money in 条件s of 十分な 雇用,
we have in fact a 条件 of prices rising 徐々に as 雇用 増加するs.
The theory of prices, that is to say, the 分析 of the relation between
changes in the 量 of money and changes in the price-level with a
見解（をとる） to 決定するing the elasticity of prices in 返答 to changes in
the 量 of money, must, therefore, direct itself to the five 複雑にするing factors
始める，決める 前へ／外へ above.
We will consider each of them in turn. But this 手続き must not be
許すd to lead us into supposing that they are, 厳密に speaking, 独立した・無所属.
For example, the 割合, in which an 増加する in 効果的な 需要・要求する is
divided in its 影響 between 増加するing 生産（高） and raising prices, may
影響する／感情 the way in which the 量 of money is 関係のある to the 量
of 効果的な 需要・要求する. Or, again, the differences in the 割合s, in
which the remunerations of different factors change, may 影響（力） the
relation between the 量 of money and the 量 of 効果的な 需要・要求する.
The 反対する of our 分析 is, not to 供給する a machine, or method of blind
巧みな操作, which will furnish an infallible answer, but to 供給する ourselves
with an organised and 整然とした method of thinking out particular problems;
and, after we have reached a 一時的に 結論 by 孤立するing the 複雑にするing
factors one by one, we then have to go 支援する on ourselves and 許す, as
井戸／弁護士席 as we can, for the probable interactions of the factors amongst themselves.
This is the nature of 経済的な thinking. Any other way of 適用するing our
formal 原則s of thought (without which, however, we shall be lost
in the 支持を得ようと努めるd) will lead us into error. It is a 広大な／多数の／重要な fault of 象徴的な pseudo-mathematical
methods of formalising a system of 経済的な 分析, such as we shall
始める，決める 負かす／撃墜する in section vi of this 一時期／支部, that they expressly assume strict
independence between the factors 伴う／関わるd and lose all their cogency and
当局 if this hypothesis is disallowed; 反して, in ordinary discourse,
where we are not blindly manipulating but know all the time what we are
doing and what the words mean, we can keep 'at the 支援する of our 長，率いるs' the
necessary reserves and 資格s and the 調整s which we shall
have to make later on, in a way in which we cannot keep 複雑にするd 部分的な／不平等な
differentials 'at the 支援する' of several pages of algebra which assume that
they all 消える. Too large a 割合 of 最近の 'mathematical' 経済的なs
are 単に concoctions, as imprecise as the 初期の 仮定／引き受けることs they 残り／休憩（する）
on, which 許す the author to lose sight of the 複雑さs and interdependencies
of the real world in a maze of pretentious and unhelpful symbols.
IV
(1) The 最初の／主要な 影響 of a change in the 量 of money on
the 量 of 効果的な 需要・要求する is through its 影響（力） on the 率 of
利益／興味. If this were the only reaction, the quantitative 影響 could
be derived from the three elements¾(a)
the schedule of liquidity-preference which tells us by how much the 率
of 利益／興味 will have to 落ちる in order that the new money may be 吸収するd
by willing 支えるもの／所有者s, (b) the schedule of ごくわずかの efficiencies which
tells us by how much a given 落ちる in the 率 of 利益／興味 will 増加する
投資, and (c) the 投資 multiplier which tells us by
how much a given 増加する in 投資 will 増加する 効果的な 需要・要求する
as a whole.
But this 分析, though it is 価値のある in introducing order and method
into our enquiry, 現在のs a deceptive 簡単, if we forget that the
three elements (a), (b) and (c) are themselves partly
扶養家族 on the 複雑にするing factors (2), (3), (4) and (5) which we have
not yet considered. For the schedule of liquidity-preference itself depends
on how much of the new money is 吸収するd into the income and 産業の
循環／発行部数s, which depends in turn on how much 効果的な 需要・要求する 増加するs
and how the 増加する is divided between the rise of prices, the rise of
給料, and the 容積／容量 of 生産（高） and 雇用. その上に, the schedule
of ごくわずかの efficiencies will partly depend on the 影響 which the circumstances
attendant on the 増加する in the 量 of money have on 期待s
of the 未来 通貨の prospects. And finally the multiplier will be 影響（力）d by the way
in which the new income resulting from the 増加するd 効果的な 需要・要求する is
分配するd between different classes of 消費者s. Nor, of course, is
this 名簿（に載せる）／表（にあげる） of possible interactions 完全にする. にもかかわらず, if we have all
the facts before us, we shall have enough 同時の equations to give
us a determinate result. There will be a determinate 量 of 増加する
in the 量 of 効果的な 需要・要求する which, after taking everything into
account, will correspond to, and be in equilibrium with, the 増加する in
the 量 of money. Moreover, it is only in 高度に exceptional circumstances
that an 増加する in the 量 of money will be associated with a 減少（する）
in the 量 of 効果的な 需要・要求する.
The 割合 between the 量 of 効果的な 需要・要求する and the 量
of money closely corresponds to what is often called the 'income-velocity
of money';¾except that 効果的な 需要・要求する
corresponds to the income the 期待 of which has 始める，決める 生産／産物 moving,
not to the 現実に realised income, and to 甚だしい／１２ダース, not 逮捕する, income. But
the 'income-velocity of money' is, in itself, 単に a 指名する which explains
nothing. There is no 推論する／理由 to 推定する／予想する that it will be constant. For it
depends, as the foregoing discussion has shown, on many コンビナート／複合体 and variable
factors. The use of this 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 obscures, I think, the real character of
the causation, and has led to nothing but 混乱.
(2) As we have shown above (一時期／支部 4), the distinction between 減らすing and constant returns partly
depends on whether 労働者s are remunerated in strict 割合 to their
efficiency. If so, we shall have constant 労働-costs (ーに関して／ーの点でs of the
行う-部隊) when 雇用 増加するs. But if the 行う of a given grade
of labourers is uniform irrespective of the efficiency of the individuals,
we shall have rising 労働-costs, irrespective of the efficiency of the
器具／備品. Moreover, if 器具／備品 is 非，不，無-homogeneous and some part of it
伴う／関わるs a greater prime cost per 部隊 of 生産（高）, we shall have 増加するing ごくわずかの prime costs over and
above any 増加する 予定 to 増加するing 労働-costs.
Hence, in general, 供給（する） price will 増加する as 生産（高） from a given
器具／備品 is 増加するd. Thus 増加するing 生産（高） will be associated with
rising prices, apart from any change in the 行う-部隊.
(3) Under (2) we have been 熟視する／熟考するing the 可能性 of 供給（する）
存在 imperfectly elastic. If there is a perfect balance in the 各々の
量s of specialised 失業した 資源s, the point of 十分な 雇用
will be reached for all of them 同時に. But, in general, the 需要・要求する
for some services and 商品／必需品s will reach a level beyond which their
供給（する） is, for the time 存在, perfectly inelastic, whilst in other directions
there is still a 相当な 黒字／過剰 of 資源s without 雇用. Thus
as 生産（高） 増加するs, a 一連の '瓶／封じ込める-necks' will be successively reached,
where the 供給（する） of particular 商品／必需品s 中止するs to be elastic and their
prices have to rise to whatever level is necessary to コースを変える 需要・要求する into
other directions.
It is probable that the general level of prices will not rise very much
as 生産（高） 増加するs, so long as there are 利用できる efficient 失業した
資源s of every type. But as soon as 生産（高） has 増加するd 十分に
to begin to reach the '瓶／封じ込める-necks', there is likely to be a sharp rise
in the prices of 確かな 商品／必需品s.
Under this 長，率いるing, however, as also under 長，率いるing (2), the elasticity
of 供給（する） partly depends on the elapse of time. If we assume a 十分な
interval for the 量 of 器具／備品 itself to change, the elasticities
of 供給（する） will be decidedly greater 結局. Thus a 穏健な change
in 効果的な 需要・要求する, coming on a 状況／情勢 where there is 普及した 失業,
may spend itself very little in raising prices and おもに in 増加するing
雇用; whilst a larger change, which, 存在 unforeseen, 原因（となる）s some
一時的な '瓶／封じ込める-necks' to be reached, will spend itself in raising prices, as
際立った from 雇用, to a greater extent at first than subsequently.
(4) That the 行う-部隊 may tend to rise before 十分な 雇用
has been reached, 要求するs little comment or explanation. Since each group
of 労働者s will 伸び（る）, cet. par., by a rise in its own 給料, there
is 自然に for all groups a 圧力 in this direction, which entrepreneurs
will be more ready to 会合，会う when they are doing better 商売／仕事. For this
推論する／理由 a 割合 of any 増加する in 効果的な 需要・要求する is likely to be
吸収するd in 満足させるing the 上向き 傾向 of the 行う-部隊.
Thus, in 新規加入 to the final 批判的な point of 十分な 雇用 at
which money-給料 have to rise, in 返答 to an 増加するing 効果的な
需要・要求する ーに関して／ーの点でs of money, fully in 割合 to the rise in the prices
of 行う-goods, we have a succession of earlier 半分-批判的な points at
which an 増加するing 効果的な 需要・要求する tends to raise money-給料 though
not fully in 割合 to the rise in the price of 行う-goods; and 類似して
in the 事例／患者 of a 減少（する）ing 効果的な 需要・要求する. In actual experience the
行う-部隊 does not change continuously ーに関して／ーの点でs of money in 返答 to
every small change in 効果的な 需要・要求する; but discontinuously. These points
of discontinuity are 決定するd by the psychology of the 労働者s and by
the 政策s of 雇用者s and 貿易（する） unions. In an open system, where they
mean a change 比較して to 行う-costs どこかよそで, and in a 貿易（する） cycle,
where even in a の近くにd system they may mean a change 比較して to 推定する／予想するd
行う-costs in the 未来, they can be of かなりの practical significance.
These points, where a その上の 増加する in 効果的な 需要・要求する ーに関して／ーの点でs of
money is liable to 原因（となる） a discontinuous rise in the 行う-部隊, might be
みなすd, from a 確かな point of 見解（をとる）, to be positions of 半分-インフレーション,
having some analogy (though a very imperfect one) to the 絶対の インフレーション
(cf. 一時期／支部 21 below) which 続いて起こるs on an 増加する in 効果的な 需要・要求する in circumstances of
十分な 雇用. They have, moreover, a good 取引，協定 of historical importance.
But they do not readily lend themselves to theoretical generalisations.
(5) Our first simplification consisted in assuming that the remunerations
of the さまざまな factors entering into ごくわずかの cost all change in the same
割合. But in fact the 率s of remuneration of different factors
ーに関して／ーの点でs of money will show 変化させるing degrees of rigidity and they may also
have different elasticities of 供給（する） in 返答 to changes in the money-rewards
申し込む／申し出d. If it were not for this, we could say that the price-level is
構内／化合物d of two factors, the 行う-部隊 and the 量 of 雇用.
Perhaps the most important element in ごくわずかの cost which is likely
to change in a different 割合 from the 行う-部隊, and also to fluctuate
within much wider 限界s, is ごくわずかの 使用者 cost. For ごくわずかの 使用者 cost
may 増加する はっきりと when 雇用 begins to 改善する, if (as will probably
be the 事例／患者) the 増加するing 効果的な 需要・要求する brings a 早い change in the
勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing 期待 as to the date when the 交替／補充 of 器具／備品
will be necessary.
Whilst it is for many 目的s a very useful first approximation to
assume that the rewards of all the factors entering into ごくわずかの prime-cost
change in the same 割合 as the 行う-部隊, it might be better, perhaps,
to take a 負わせるd 普通の／平均（する） of the rewards of the factors entering into
ごくわずかの prime-cost, and call this the cost-部隊. The cost-部隊,
or, 支配する to the above approximation, the 行う-部隊, can thus be regarded
as the 必須の 基準 of value; and the price-level, given the 明言する／公表する
of technique and 器具／備品, will depend partly on the cost-部隊, and partly
on the 規模 of 生産（高）, 増加するing, where 生産（高） 増加するs, more than
in 割合 to any 増加する in the cost-部隊, in 一致 with the
原則 of 減らすing returns in the short period. We have 十分な 雇用 when 生産（高） has risen to a level at
which the ごくわずかの return from a 代表者／国会議員 部隊 of the factors of
生産／産物 has fallen to the 最小限 人物／姿／数字 at which a 量 of the
factors 十分な to produce this 生産（高） is 利用できる.
V
When a その上の 増加する in the 量 of 効果的な 需要・要求する produces
no その上の 増加する in 生産（高） and 完全に spends itself on an 増加する
in the cost-部隊 fully proportionate to the 増加する in 効果的な 需要・要求する,
we have reached a 条件 which might be 適切な 指定するd as
one of true インフレーション. Up to this point the 影響 of 通貨の 拡大
is 完全に a question of degree, and there is no previous point at which
we can draw a 限定された line and 宣言する that 条件s of インフレーション have
始める，決める in. Every previous 増加する in the 量 of money is likely, in
so far as it 増加するs 効果的な 需要・要求する, to spend itself partly in 増加するing
the cost-部隊 and partly in 増加するing 生産（高）.
It appears, therefore, that we have a sort of asymmetry on the two 味方するs
of the 批判的な level above which true インフレーション 始める，決めるs in. For a 収縮過程
of 効果的な 需要・要求する below the 批判的な level will 減ずる its 量 手段d
in cost-部隊s; 反して an 拡大 of 効果的な 需要・要求する beyond this level
will not, in general, have the 影響 of 増加するing its 量 ーに関して／ーの点でs
of cost-部隊s. This result follows from the 仮定／引き受けること that the factors
of 生産／産物, and in particular the 労働者s, are 性質の／したい気がして to resist a
削減 in their money-rewards, and that there is no corresponding 動機
to resist an 増加する. This 仮定／引き受けること is, however, 明白に 井戸／弁護士席 設立するd
in the facts, 予定 to the circumstance that a change, which is not an all-一連の会議、交渉／完成する
change, is 有益な to the special factors 影響する／感情d when it is 上向き
and harmful when it is downward.
If, on the contrary, money-給料 were to 落ちる without 限界 whenever there was a 傾向 for いっそう少なく than 十分な 雇用,
the asymmetry would, indeed, disappear. But in that 事例／患者 there would be
no 残り／休憩（する）ing-place below 十分な 雇用 until either the 率 of 利益／興味
was incapable of 落ちるing その上の or 給料 were 無. In fact we must have
some factor, the value of which ーに関して／ーの点でs of money is, if not 直す／買収する，八百長をするd,
at least sticky, to give us any 安定 of values in a 通貨の system.
The 見解（をとる） that any 増加する in the 量 of money is inflationary
(unless
we mean by inflationary 単に that prices are rising) is bound up with
the underlying 仮定／引き受けること of the classical theory that we are always in
a 条件 where a 削減 in the real rewards of the factors of 生産／産物
will lead to a curtailment in their 供給（する）.
VI
With the 援助（する） of the notation introduced in 一時期／支部 20 we can, if we wish, 表明する the 実体 of the above in 象徴的な
form.
Let us 令状 MV = D where M is the
量 of money, V its income-velocity (this 鮮明度／定義 異なるing
in the minor 尊敬（する）・点s 示すd above from the usual 鮮明度／定義) and D
the 効果的な 需要・要求する. If, then, V is constant, prices will change
in the same 割合 as the 量 of money 供給するd that ep
( = (Dpd) / (pdD)) is まとまり. This 条件 is 満足させるd
(see 一時期／支部 20 above) if eo = 0 or if ew
= 1. The 条件 ew = 1 means that
the 行う-部隊 ーに関して／ーの点でs of money rises in the same 割合 as the 効果的な
需要・要求する, since ew = (DdW) /
(WdD) and the 条件 eo = 0 means
that 生産（高） no longer shows any 返答 to a その上の 増加する in 効果的な
需要・要求する, since eo = (DdO) /
(OdD). 生産（高） in either 事例／患者 will be unaltered. Next, we can 取引，協定
with the 事例／患者 where income-velocity is not constant, by introducing yet
a その上の elasticity, すなわち the elasticity of 効果的な 需要・要求する in 返答 to
changes in the 量 of money,
MdD
ed = ¾¾¾¾
DdM
This gives us
Mdp
¾¾¾¾ =
ep × ed where ep
= 1 - ee × eo(1
- ew);
pdM
so that
e =
ed -
(1
- ew)
ed
×
eeeo
= ed(1 -
ee eo + ee eo
× ew)
where
e without suffix (= (
Mdp)
/ (
pdM))
stands for the apex of this pyramid and 対策 the 返答 of money-prices
to changes in the 量 of money.
Since this last 表現 gives us the proportionate change in prices
in 返答 to a change in the 量 of money, it can be regarded as
a generalised 声明 of the 量 theory of money. I do not myself
attach much value to 巧みな操作s of this 肉親，親類d; and I would repeat the
警告, which I have given above, that they 伴う／関わる just as much tacit
仮定／引き受けること as towhat variables are taken as 独立した・無所属 (部分的な／不平等な differentials
存在 ignored throughout) as does ordinary discourse, whilst I 疑問 if
they carry us any その上の than ordinary discourse can. Perhaps the best
目的 served by 令状ing them 負かす／撃墜する is to 展示（する） the extreme 複雑さ
of the 関係 between prices and the 量 of money, when we 試みる／企てる
to 表明する it in a formal manner. It is, however, 価値（がある） pointing out that,
of the four 条件 ed, ew, ee
and eo upon which the 影響 on prices of changes in
the 量 of money depends, ed stands for the liquidity
factors which 決定する the 需要・要求する for money in each 状況／情勢, ew
for the 労働 factors (or, more 厳密に, the factors entering into prime-cost)
which 決定する the extent to which money-給料 are raised as 雇用
増加するs, and ee and eo for the physical
factors which 決定する the 率 of 減少（する）ing returns as more 雇用 is 適用するd to the 存在するing
器具／備品.
If the public 持つ／拘留する a constant 割合 of their income in money, ed
= 1; if money-給料 are 直す／買収する，八百長をするd, ew =
0; if there are constant returns throughout so that ごくわずかの return equals
普通の／平均（する） return, ee eo =
1; and if there is 十分な 雇用 either of 労働 or of 器具／備品,
ee
eo = 0.
Now e = 1, if ed =
1, and ew = 1; or if ed
= 1,
ew = 0 and ee
× eo = 0; or if ed
= 1 and eo = 0. And 明白に there
is a variety of other special 緩和するs in which e = 1.
But in general e is not まとまり; and it is, perhaps, 安全な to make
the generalisation that on plausible 仮定／引き受けることs relating to the real world,
and 除外するing the 事例／患者 of a 'flight from the 通貨' in which ed
and ew become large, e is, as a 支配する, いっそう少なく than
まとまり.
VII
So far, we have been まず第一に／本来 関心d with the way in which changes
in the 量 of money 影響する／感情 prices in the short period. But in the
long run is there not some simpler 関係?
This is a question for historical generalisation rather than for pure
theory. If there is some 傾向 to a 手段 of long-run uniformity in
the 明言する／公表する of liquidity-preference, there may 井戸／弁護士席 be some sort of rough
関係 between the 国民所得 and the 量 of money 要求するd
to 満足させる liquidity-preference, taken as a mean over periods of 悲観論主義
and 楽観主義 together. There may be, for example, some 公正に／かなり stable 割合
of the 国民所得 more than which people will not readily keep in
the 形態／調整 of idle balances for long periods together, 供給するd the 率
of 利益／興味 越えるs a 確かな psychological 最小限; so that if the 量
of money beyond what is 要求するd in the active 循環／発行部数 is in 超過
of this 割合 of the 国民所得, there will be a 傾向 sooner
or later for the 率 of 利益／興味 to 落ちる to the neighbourhood of this
最小限. The 落ちるing 率 of 利益／興味 will then, cet. par., 増加する
効果的な 需要・要求する, and the 増加するing 効果的な 需要・要求する will reach one or
more of the 半分-批判的な points at which the 行う-部隊 will tend to show
a discontinuous rise, with a corresponding 影響 on prices. The opposite
傾向s will 始める，決める in if the 量 of 黒字／過剰 money is an abnormally
low 割合 of the 国民所得. Thus the 逮捕する 影響 of fluctuations
over a period of time will be to 設立する a mean 人物／姿／数字 in 順応／服従
with the stable 割合 between the 国民所得 and the 量
of money to which the psychology of the public tends sooner or later to
逆戻りする.
These 傾向s will probably work with いっそう少なく 摩擦 in the 上向き
than in the downward direction. But if the 量 of money remains very
deficient for a long time, the escape will be 普通は 設立する in changing
the 通貨の 基準 or the 通貨の system so as to raise the 量
of money, rather than in 軍隊ing 負かす／撃墜する the 行う-部隊 and その為に 増加するing
the 重荷（を負わせる） of 負債. Thus the very long-run course of prices has almost
always been 上向き. For when money is 比較して abundant, the 行う-部隊
rises; and when money is 比較して 不十分な, some means is 設立する to 増加する
the 効果的な 量 of money.
During the nineteenth century, the growth of 全住民 and of 発明,
the 開始-up of new lands, the 明言する／公表する of 信用／信任 and the frequency
of war over the 普通の／平均（する） of (say) each １０年間 seem to have been 十分な,
taken in 合同 with the propensity to 消費する, to 設立する a schedule
of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 which 許すd a reasonably 満足な
普通の／平均（する） level of 雇用 to be 両立できる with a 率 of 利益／興味 high
enough to be psychologically 許容できる to wealth-owners. There is 証拠
that for a period of almost one hundred and fifty years the long-run typical
率 of 利益／興味 in the 主要な 財政上の centres was about 5 per cent, and the gilt-辛勝する／優位d 率 between 3 and
3½ per cent; and that these 率s of 利益／興味 were modest enough
to encourage a 率 of 投資 一貫した with an 普通の／平均（する） of 雇用
which was not intolerably low. いつかs the 行う-部隊, but more often
the 通貨の 基準 or the 通貨の system (in particular through the
開発 of bank-money), would be adjusted so as to 確実にする that the
量 of money ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s was 十分な to 満足させる normal
liquidity-preference at 率s of 利益／興味 which were seldom much below
the 基準 率s 示すd above. The 傾向 of the 行う-部隊 was,
as usual, 刻々と 上向きs on the whole, but the efficiency of 労働 was
also 増加するing. Thus the balance of 軍隊s was such as to 許す a fair
手段 of 安定 of prices;¾the highest
quinquennial 普通の／平均（する） for Sauerbeck's 索引 number between 1820 and 1914
was only 50 per cent above the lowest. This was not 偶発の. It is rightly
述べるd as 予定 to a balance of 軍隊s in an age when individual groups
of 雇用者s were strong enough to 妨げる the 行う-部隊 from rising much
faster than the efficiency of 生産／産物, and when 通貨の systems were
at the same time 十分に fluid and 十分に 保守的な to 供給する
an 普通の／平均（する） 供給（する） of money ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s which 許すd to 勝つ／広く一帯に広がる
the lowest 普通の／平均（する） 率 of 利益／興味 readily 許容できる by wealth-owners
under the 影響（力） of their liquidity-preferences. The 普通の／平均（する） level of
雇用 was, of course, 大幅に below 十分な 雇用, but not
so intolerably below it as to 刺激する 革命の changes.
To-day and 推定では for the 未来 the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency
of 資本／首都 is, for a variety of 推論する／理由s, much lower than it was in the
nineteenth century. The acuteness and the peculiarity of our 同時代の
problem arises, therefore, out of the 可能性 that the 普通の／平均（する） 率
of 利益／興味 which will 許す a reasonable 普通の／平均（する） level of 雇用 is
one so 容認できない to wealth-owners that it cannot be readily 設立するd
単に by manipulating the 量 of money. So long as a tolerable level
of 雇用 could be 達成するd on the 普通の／平均（する） of one or two or three １０年間s
単に by 保証するing an 適する 供給（する） of money ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s,
even the nineteenth century could find a way. If this was our only problem
now¾if a 十分な degree of 平価切下げ
is all we need¾we, to-day, would certainly
find a way.
But the most stable, and the least easily 転換d, element in our 同時代の
economy has been hitherto, and may 証明する to be in 未来, the 最小限 率
of 利益／興味 許容できる to the generality of wealth-owners. If a tolerable level of 雇用 要求するs a 率 of 利益／興味 much below
the 普通の／平均（する） 率s which 支配するd in the nineteenth century, it is most doubtful
whether it can be 達成するd 単に by manipulating the 量 of money.
From the 百分率 伸び（る）, which the schedule of ごくわずかの efficiency of
資本／首都 許すs the borrower to 推定する／予想する to earn, there has to be deducted
(1) the cost of bringing borrowers and 貸す人s together, (2) income and
sur-税金s and (3) the allowance which the 貸す人 要求するs to cover his
危険 and 不確定, before we arrive at the 逮捕する 産する／生じる 利用できる to tempt
the wealth-owner to sacrifice his liquidity. If, in 条件s of tolerable
普通の／平均（する） 雇用, this 逮捕する 産する／生じる turns out to be infinitesimal, time-honoured
methods may 証明する unavailing.
To return to our 即座の 支配する, the long-run 関係 between
the 国民所得 and the 量 of money will depend on liquidity-preferences.
And the long-run 安定 or 不安定 of prices will depend on the
strength of the 上向き 傾向 ofthe 行う-部隊 (or, more 正確に, of the
cost-部隊) compared with the 率 of 増加する in the efficiency of the
生産力のある system.