一時期／支部 23
NOTES ON MERCANTILISM, THE USURY LAWS, STAMPED MONEY AND THEORIES OF UNDER-CONSUMPTION
I
For some two hundred years both 経済的な 理論家s and
practical men did not 疑問 that there is a peculiar advantage to
a country in a favourable balance of 貿易（する）, and 墓／厳粛／彫る／重大な danger in
an unfavourable balance, 特に if it results in an effiux
of the precious metals. But for the past one hundred years there
has been a remarkable 相違 of opinion. The 大多数 of
statesmen and practical men in most countries, and nearly half of
them even in 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain, the home of the opposite 見解（をとる）, have
remained faithful to the 古代の doctrine; 反して almost all
経済的な 理論家s have held that 苦悩 関心ing such 事柄s
is 絶対 groundless except on a very short 見解（をとる）, since the
機械装置 of foreign 貿易（する） is self-adjusting and 試みる／企てるs to
干渉する with it are not only futile, but 大いに impoverish
those who practise them because they 没収される the advantages of
the international 分割 of 労働. It will be convenient, in
一致 with tradition, to 指定する the older opinion as mercantilism
and the newer as 自由貿易, though these 条件, since
each of them has both a broader and a narrower signification,
must be 解釈する／通訳するd with 言及／関連 to the 状況.
一般に speaking, modern 経済学者s have 持続するd not
単に that there is, as a 支配する, a balance of 伸び（る） from the international 分割 of 労働 十分な to
outweigh such advantages as mercantilist practice can 公正に／かなり
（人命などを）奪う，主張する, but that the mercantilist argument is based, from start to
finish, on an 知識人 混乱.
Marshall,for example, although his 言及／関連s to mercantilism are not
altogether 冷淡な, had no regard for their central theory
as such and does not even について言及する those elements of truth in
their 論争s which I shall 診察する below.
In the same way, the theoretical 譲歩s which 解放する／自由な-貿易（する）
経済学者s have been ready to make in 同時代の 論争s,
relating, for example, to the 激励 of 幼児 産業s
or to the 改良 of the 条件 of 貿易（する）, are not 関心d
with the real 実体 of the mercantilist 事例／患者. During the
会計の 論争 of the first ４半期/4分の1 of the 現在の century I
do not remember that any 譲歩 was ever 許すd by
経済学者s to the （人命などを）奪う，主張する that 保護 might 増加する 国内の
雇用. It will be fairest, perhaps, to 引用する, as an example,
what I wrote myself. So lately as 1923, as a faithful pupil of
the classical school who did not at that time 疑問 what he had
been taught and entertained on this 事柄 no reserves at all, I
wrote: 'If there is one thing that 保護 can not do,
it is to cure 失業. . .There are some arguments
for 保護, based upon its 安全な・保証するing possible but improbable
advantages, to which there is no simple answer. But the （人命などを）奪う，主張する to
cure 失業 伴う／関わるs the 保護貿易論者 fallacy in its
grossest and crudest form.'
As for earlier mercantilist theory, no intelligible account was 利用できる; and we were brought up to
believe that it was little better than nonsense. So 絶対
圧倒的な and 完全にする has been the 支配 of the
classical school.
II
Let me first 明言する／公表する in my own 条件 what now seems to me to be
the element of 科学の truth in mercantilist doctrine. We will
then compare this with the actual arguments of the mercantilists.
It should be understood that the advantages （人命などを）奪う，主張するd are avowedly
国家の advantages and are ありそうもない to 利益 the world as a
whole.
When a country is growing in wealth somewhat 速く, the
その上の 進歩 of this happy 明言する／公表する of 事件／事情／状勢s is liable to be
interrupted, in 条件s of laissez-faire, by the
insufficiency of the 誘導s to new 投資. Given the
social and political 環境 and the 国家の 特徴
which 決定する the propensity to 消費する, the 井戸／弁護士席-存在 of a
進歩／革新的な 明言する／公表する essentially depends, for the 推論する／理由s we have
already explained, on the 十分なこと of such 誘導s. They
may be 設立する either in home 投資 or in foreign 投資
(含むing in the latter the accumulation of the precious
metals), which, between them, （不足などを）補う aggregate 投資. In
条件s in which the 量 of aggregate 投資 is
決定するd by the 利益（をあげる） 動機 alone, the 適切な時期s for home
投資 will be 治める／統治するd, in the long run, by the 国内の
率 of 利益／興味; whilst the 容積／容量 of foreign 投資 is
やむを得ず 決定するd by the size of the favourable balance of
貿易（する）. Thus, in a society where there is no question of direct
投資 under the 保護 of public 当局, the
経済的な 反対するs, with which it is reasonable for the
政府 to be preoccupied, are the 国内の 率 of 利益／興味
and the balance of foreign 貿易（する）.
Now, if the 行う-部隊 is somewhat stable and not liable to
spontaneous changes of 重要な magnitude (a 条件 which
is almost always 満足させるd), if the 明言する／公表する of liquidity-preference
is somewhat stable, taken as an 普通の／平均（する） of its short-period
fluctuations, and if banking 条約s are also stable, the
率 of 利益／興味 will tend to be 治める／統治するd by the 量 of the
precious metals, 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 行う-部隊, 利用できる to
満足させる the community's 願望（する） for liquidity. At the same time,
in an age in which 相当な foreign 貸付金s and the 完全な
所有権 of wealth 位置を示すd abroad are scarcely practicable,
増加するs and 減少（する）s in the 量 of the precious metals
will 大部分は depend on whether the balance of 貿易（する） is favourable
or unfavourable.
Thus, as it happens, a 最大の関心事 on the part of the
当局 with a favourable balance of 貿易（する） served both
目的s; and was, その上に, the only 利用できる means of
促進するing them. At a time when the 当局 had no direct
支配（する）／統制する over the 国内の 率 of 利益／興味 or the other
誘導s to home 投資, 対策 to 増加する the
favourable balance of 貿易（する） were the only direct means at
their 処分 for 増加するing foreign 投資; and, at the
same time, the 影響 of a favourable balance of 貿易（する） on the
influx of the precious metals was their only indirect means
of 減ずるing the 国内の 率 of 利益／興味 and so 増加するing the
誘導 to home 投資.
There are, however, two 制限s on the success of this
政策 which must not be overlooked. If the 国内の 率 of
利益／興味 落ちるs so low that the 容積／容量 of 投資 is
十分に 刺激するd to raise 雇用 to a level which
breaks through some of the 批判的な points at which the 行う-部隊
rises, the 増加する in the 国内の level of costs will begin to
反応する unfavourably on the balance of foreign 貿易（する）, so that the
成果／努力 to 増加する the latter will have overreached and 敗北・負かすd
itself. Again, if the 国内の 率 of 利益／興味 落ちるs so low 比較して to 率s of 利益／興味 どこかよそで as to
刺激する a 容積／容量 of foreign lending which is disproportionate
to the favourable balance, there may 続いて起こる an effiux of the
precious metals 十分な to 逆転する the advantages 以前
得るd. The 危険 of one or other of these 制限s becoming
operative is 増加するd in the 事例／患者 of a country which is large
and 国祭的な important by the fact that, in 条件s
where the 現在の 生産（高） of the precious metals from the 地雷s is
on a 比較して small 規模, an influx of money into one country
means an effiux from another; so that the 逆の 影響s of
rising costs and 落ちるing 率s of 利益／興味 at home may be
accentuated (if the mercantilist 政策 is 押し進めるd too far) by
落ちるing costs and rising 率s of 利益／興味 abroad.
The 経済的な history of Spain in the latter part of the
fifteenth and in the sixteenth centuries 供給するs an example of a
country whose foreign 貿易（する） was destroyed by the 影響 on the
行う-部隊 of an 過度の 豊富 of the precious metals. 広大な／多数の／重要な
Britain in the pre-war years of the twentieth century 供給するs an
example of a country in which the 過度の 施設s for
foreign lending and the 購入（する） of 所有物／資産／財産s abroad frequently
stood in the way of the 拒絶する／低下する in the 国内の 率 of 利益／興味
which was 要求するd to 確実にする 十分な 雇用 at home. The history
of India at all times has 供給するd an example of a country
貧窮化した by a preference for liquidity 量ing to so strong
a passion that even an enormous and chronic influx of the
precious metals has been insufficient to bring 負かす／撃墜する the 率 of
利益／興味 to a level which was 両立できる with the growth of real
wealth.
にもかかわらず, if we 熟視する／熟考する a society with a somewhat
stable 行う-部隊, with 国家の 特徴 which 決定する
the propensity to 消費する and the preference for liquidity, and
with a 通貨の system which rigidly links the 量 of money
to the 在庫／株 of the precious metals, it will be 必須の for the
維持／整備 of 繁栄 that the 当局 should 支払う／賃金 の近くに
attention to the 明言する／公表する of the balance of 貿易（する）. For a favourable
balance, 供給するd it is not too large, will 証明する 極端に
刺激するing; whilst an unfavourable balance may soon produce a
明言する／公表する of 執拗な 不景気.
It does not follow from this that the 最大限 degree of
制限 of 輸入するs will 促進する the 最大限 favourable
balance of 貿易（する）. The earlier mercantilists laid 広大な／多数の／重要な 強調
on this and were often to be 設立する …に反対するing 貿易（する） 制限s
because on a long 見解（をとる） they were liable to operate 逆に to a
favourable balance. It is, indeed, arguable that in the special
circumstances of 中央の-nineteenth-century 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain an almost
完全にする freedom of 貿易（する） was the 政策 most 役立つ to the
開発 of a favourable balance. 同時代の experience of
貿易（する） 制限s in 戦後の Europe 申し込む／申し出s manifold examples of
ill-conceived 妨害s on freedom which, designed to 改善する
the favourable balance, had in fact a contrary 傾向.
For this and other 推論する／理由s the reader must not reach a
premature 結論 as to the practical 政策 to which
our argument leads up. There are strong presumptions of a general
character against 貿易（する） 制限s unless they can be 正当化するd
on special grounds. The advantages of the international 分割
of 労働 are real and 相当な, even though the classical
school 大いに overstressed them. The fact that the advantage
which our own country 伸び（る）s from a favourable balance is liable
to 伴う／関わる an equal disadvantage to some other country (a point
to which the mercantilists were fully alive) means not only that
広大な／多数の／重要な moderation is necessary, so that a country 安全な・保証するs for
itself no larger a 株 of the 在庫／株 of the precious metals than
is fair and reasonable, but also that an immoderate 政策 may
lead to a senseless international 競争 for a favourable
balance which 負傷させるs all alike.
And finally, a 政策 of 貿易（する） 制限s is a 背信の
器具 even for the attainment of its ostensible 反対する,
since 私的な 利益／興味, 行政の 無資格／無能力 and the
intrinsic difficulty of the 仕事 may コースを変える it into producing
results 直接／まっすぐに opposite to those ーするつもりであるd.
Thus, the 負わせる of my 批評 is directed against the
inadequacy of the theoretical 創立／基礎s of the laissez-faire
doctrine upon which I was brought up and which for many years I
taught;ｾagainst the notion that the
率 of 利益／興味 and the 容積／容量 of 投資 are self-adjusting
at the optimum level, so that 最大の関心事 with the balance of
貿易（する） is a waste of time. For we, the faculty of 経済学者s,
証明する to have been 有罪の of presumptuous error in 扱う／治療するing as a
puerile obsession what for centuries has been a prime 反対する of
practical statecraft.
Under the 影響（力） of this 欠陥のある theory the City of London
徐々に 工夫するd the most dangerous technique for the
維持／整備 of equilibrium which can かもしれない be imagined,
すなわち, the technique of bank 率 coupled with a rigid parity of
the foreign 交流s. For this meant that the 客観的な of
持続するing a 国内の 率 of 利益／興味 一貫した with 十分な
雇用 was wholly 支配するd out. Since, in practice, it is
impossible to neglect the balance of 支払い（額）s, a means of
controlling it was 発展させるd which, instead of 保護するing the
国内の 率 of 利益／興味, sacrificed it to the 操作／手術 of
blind 軍隊s. Recently, practical 銀行業者s in London have learnt
much, and one can almost hope that in 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain the technique
of bank 率 will never be used again to 保護する the foreign
balance in 条件s in which it is likely to 原因（となる） 失業
at home.
Regarded as the theory of the individual 会社／堅い and of the 配当 of the 製品 resulting from the
雇用 of a given 量 of 資源s, the classical theory
has made a 出資／貢献 to 経済的な thinking which cannot be
impugned. It is impossible to think 明確に on the 支配する
without this theory as a part of one's apparatus of thought. I
must not be supposed to question this in calling attention to
their neglect of what was 価値のある in their 前任者s.
にもかかわらず, as a 出資／貢献 to statecraft, which is 関心d
with the 経済的な system as a whole and with 安全な・保証するing the optimum
雇用 of the system's entire 資源s, the methods of the
早期に 開拓するs of 経済的な thinking in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries may have 達成するd to fragments of practical
知恵 which the unrealistic abstractions of Ricardo first forgot
and then obliterated. There was 知恵 in their 激しい
最大の関心事 with keeping 負かす／撃墜する the 率 of 利益／興味 by means of
usury 法律s (to which we will return later in this 一時期／支部), by
持続するing the 国内の 在庫／株 of money and by discouraging rises
in the 行う-部隊; and in their 準備完了 in the last 訴える手段／行楽地 to
回復する the 在庫／株 of money by 平価切下げ, if it had become
plainly deficient through an 避けられない foreign drain, a rise in
the 行う-部隊,or any other 原因（となる）.
III
The 早期に 開拓するs of 経済的な thinking may have 攻撃する，衝突する upon
their maxims of practical 知恵 without having had much
cognisance of the underlying theoretical grounds. Let us,
therefore, 診察する 簡潔に the 推論する／理由s they gave 同様に as what
they recommended. This is made 平易な by 言及／関連 to Professor Heckscher's 広大な／多数の／重要な work on Mercantilism,
in which the 必須の 特徴 of 経済的な thought over a
period of two centuries are made 利用できる for the first time to
the general 経済的な reader. The quotations which follow are
おもに taken from his pages.
(1) Mercantilists' thought never supposed that
there was a self-adjusting 傾向 by which the 率 of 利益／興味
would be 設立するd at the appropriate level. On the contrary
they were emphatic that an unduly high 率 of 利益／興味 was the
main 障害 to the growth of wealth; and they were even aware
that the 率 of 利益／興味 depended on liquidity-preference and
the 量 of money. They were 関心d both with 減らすing
liquidity-preference and with 増加するing the 量 of money,
and several of them made it （疑いを）晴らす that their 最大の関心事 with
増加するing the 量 of money was 予定 to their 願望（する） to
減らす the 率 of 利益／興味. Professor Heckscher sums up this
面 of their theory as follows:
The position of the more perspicacious mercantilists was
in this 尊敬（する）・点, as in many others, perfectly （疑いを）晴らす within
確かな 限界s. For them, money wasｾto
use the terminology of to-dayｾa
factor of 生産／産物, on the same 地盤 as land, いつかs
regarded as '人工的な' wealth as 際立った from the
'natural' wealth; 利益／興味 on 資本／首都 was the 支払い（額） for the
renting of money 類似の to rent for land. In so far as
mercantilists sought to discover 客観的な 推論する／理由s for the
高さ of the 率 of 利益／興味ｾand
they did so more and more during this periodｾthey 設立する such 推論する／理由s in the total
量 of money. From the abundant 構成要素 利用できる, only
the most typical examples will be selected, so as to
論証する first and 真っ先の how 継続している this notion was,
how 深い-rooted and 独立した・無所属 of practical considerations.
Both of the protagonists in the struggle over 通貨の
政策 and the East India 貿易（する） in the 早期に 1620's in
England were in entire 協定 on this point. Gerard
Malynes 明言する／公表するd, giving 詳細（に述べる）d 推論する／理由 for his 主張,
that 'Plenty of money decreaseth usury in price or 率' (Lex
Mercatoria and 維持／整備 of 解放する／自由な 貿易（する）, 1622).
His truculent and rather unscrupulous adversary, Edward
Misselden, replied that 'The 治療（薬） for Usury may be plenty
of money' (解放する／自由な 貿易（する） or the Meanes to make 貿易（する） Florish,
same year). Of the 主要な writers of half a century later,
Child, the omnipotent leader of the East India Company and
its most skilful 支持する, discussed (1668) the question of
how far the 合法的な 最大限 率 of 利益／興味, which he
emphatically 需要・要求するd, would result in 製図／抽選 'the money' of
the Dutch away from England. He 設立する a 治療（薬） for this
dreaded disadvantage in the easier 移動 of 法案s of
負債, if these were used as 通貨, for this, he said,
'will certainly 供給（する） the defect of at least one-half of all
the ready money we have in use in the nation'. Petty, the
other writer, who was 完全に 影響を受けない by the 衝突／不一致 of
利益／興味s, was in 協定 with the 残り／休憩（する） when he explained
the 'natural' 落ちる in the 率 of 利益／興味 from 10 per cent
to 6 per cent by the 増加する in the 量 of money (Political
Arithmetick, 1676), and advised lending at 利益／興味 as an
appropriate 治療（薬） for a country with too much 'Coin' (Quantulumcunque
関心ing Money, 1682).
This 推論する／理由ing, 自然に enough, was by no means 限定するd
to England. Several years later (1701 and 1706), for example,
French merchants and statesmen complained of the 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing
scarcity of coin (disette des esp鐵es) as the 原因（となる）
of the 高金利s, and they were anxious to lower
the 率 of usury by 増加するing the 循環／発行部数 of
money.
The 広大な／多数の／重要な Locke was, perhaps, the first to 表明する in abstract
条件 the 関係 between the 率 of 利益／興味 and the
量 of money in his 論争 with Petty.
He was …に反対するing Petty's 提案 of a 最大限 率 of 利益／興味 on
the ground that it was as impracticable as to 直す／買収する，八百長をする a 最大限 rent
for land, since 'the natural Value of Money, as it is apt to
産する／生じる such an 年一回の Income by 利益／興味, depends on the whole 量 of
the then passing Money of the Kingdom, in 割合 to the whole
貿易（する） of the Kingdom (i.e. the general Vent of all the
商品／必需品s)'.
Locke explains that money has two values: (i) its value in use
which is given by the 率 of 利益／興味 and in this it has the
Nature of Land, the Income of one 存在 called Rent, of the
other, Use',
and (2) its value in 交流 'and in this it has the Nature of a
商品／必需品', its value in 交流 'depending only on the Plenty
or Scarcity of Money in 割合 to the Plenty or Scarcity of
those things and not on what 利益／興味 shall be'. Thus Locke was
the parent of twin 量 theories. In the first place he held
that the 率 of 利益／興味 depended on the 割合 of the
量 of money (許すing for the velocity of 循環／発行部数) to
the total value of 貿易（する）. In the second place he held that the
value of money in 交流 depended on the 割合 of the
量 of money to the total 容積／容量 of goods in the market. Butｾstanding with one foot in the mercantilist
world and with one foot in the classical worldｾhe was 混乱させるd 関心ing the relation
between these two 割合s, and he overlooked altogether the
可能性 of fluctuations in liquidity-preference. He
was, however, eager to explain that a 削減 in the 率 of 利益／興味 has no direct 影響
on the price-level and 影響する／感情s prices 'only as the Change of
利益／興味 in 貿易（する） conduces to the bringing in or carrying out
Money or 商品／必需品, and so in time 変化させるing their 割合 here
in England from what it was before', i.e. if the 削減 in the
率 of 利益／興味 leads to the 輸出（する） of cash or an 増加する in
生産（高）. But he never, I think, proceeds to a 本物の
合成.
How easily the mercantilist mind distinguished between the
率 of 利益／興味 and the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 is
illustrated by a passage (printed in 1621) which Locke 引用するs
from A Letter to a friend 関心ing Usury: 'High 利益／興味
decays 貿易（する）. The advantage from 利益／興味 is greater than the
利益（をあげる） from 貿易（する）, which makes the rich Merchants give over, and
put out their 在庫／株 to 利益／興味, and the lesser Merchants Break.'
Fortrey (England's 利益／興味 and 改良, 1663) affords
another example of the 強調する／ストレス laid on a low 率 of 利益／興味 as a
means of 増加するing wealth.
The mercantilists did not overlook the point that, if an
過度の liquidity-preference were to 身を引く the influx of
precious metals into hoards, the advantage to the 率 of
利益／興味 would be lost. In some 事例／患者s (e.g. Mun) the 反対する of
高めるing the 力／強力にする of the 明言する／公表する led them, にもかかわらず, to
支持する the accumulation of 明言する／公表する treasure. But others 率直に
…に反対するd this 政策:
Schr?ter, for instance, 雇うd the usual mercantilist
arguments in 製図／抽選 a lurid picture of how the 循環／発行部数
in the country would be robbed of all its money through a
大いに 増加するing 明言する／公表する 財務省. . .he, too, drew
a perfectly 論理（学）の 平行の between the accumulation of
treasure by the
修道院s and the 輸出（する） 黒字／過剰 of precious metals,
which, to him, was indeed the worst possible thing which he
could think of. Davenant explained the extreme poverty of
many Eastern nationsｾwho were
believed to have more gold and silver than any other
countries in the worldｾby the
fact that treasure 'is 苦しむd to stagnate in the Princes'
Coffers'. . .If hoarding by the 明言する／公表する was
considered, at best, a doubtful boon, and often a 広大な／多数の／重要な
danger, it goes without 説 that 私的な hoarding was to
be shunned like the pest. It was one of the 傾向s
against which innumerable mercantilist writers 雷鳴d, and
I do not think it would be possible to find a 選び出す／独身
dissentient 発言する／表明する.
(2) The mercantilists were aware of the fallacy of
cheapness and the danger that 過度の 競争 may turn the
条件 of 貿易（する） against a country. Thus Malynes wrote in his Lex
Mercatoria (1622): '努力する／競う not to undersell others to the
傷つける of the 連邦／共和国, under colour to 増加する 貿易（する）: for
貿易（する） doth not 増加する when 商品／必需品s are good cheap, because
the cheapness proceedeth of the small request and scarcity of
money, which maketh things cheap: so that the contrary augmenteth
貿易（する） when there is plenty of money, and 商品／必需品s become
dearer 存在 in request'.
Professor Heckscher sums up as follows this 立ち往生させる in
mercantilist thought:
In the course of a century and a half this 見地 was
明確に表すd again and again in this way, that a country with
比較して いっそう少なく money than other countries must 'sell cheap
and buy dear'. . .
Even in the 初めの 版 of the Discourse of the
ありふれた Weal, that is in the middle of the 16th century,
this 態度 was already manifested. Hales said, in fact,
'And yet if strangers should be content to take but our wares
for theirs, what should let them to 前進する the price of
other things (meaning: の中で others, such as we buy from
them), though ours were good cheap unto them? And then shall
we be still losers, and they at the winning 手渡す with us,
while they sell dear and yet buy ours good cheap, and
その結果 濃厚にする
themselves and impoverish us. Yet had I rather 前進する our
wares in price, as they 前進する theirs, as we now do; though
some be losers その為に, and yet not so many as should be the
other way.' On this point he had the unqualified 是認 of
his editor several １０年間s later (1581). In the 17th century,
this 態度 recurred again without any 根底となる change
in significance. Thus, Malynes believed this unfortunate
position to be the result of what he dreaded above all
things, i.e. a foreign under-valuation of the English
交流. . .The same conception then recurred
continually. In his Verbum Sapienti (written 1665,
published 1691), Petty believed that the violent 成果／努力s to
増加する the 量 of money could only 中止する 'when we have
certainly more money than any of our 隣人 明言する／公表するs (though
never so little), both in Arithmetical and Geometrical
割合'. During the period between the 令状ing and the
出版（物） of this work, Coke 宣言するd, 'If our Treasure
were more than our 隣人ing Nations, I did not care
whether we had one fifth part of the Treasure we now have'
(1675).
(3) The mercantilists were the 初めのs of 'the
恐れる of goods' and the scarcity of money as 原因（となる）s of
失業 which the classicals were to 公然と非難する two centuries
later as an absurdity:
One of the earliest instances of the 使用／適用 of the
失業 argument as a 推論する／理由 for the 禁止 of
輸入するs is to be 設立する in Florence in the year
1426. . . .The English 法律制定 on the
事柄 goes 支援する to at least 1455. . . .An
almost 同時代の French 法令 of 1466, forming the basis
of the silk 産業 of Lyons, later to become so famous, was
いっそう少なく 利益／興味ing in so far as it was not 現実に directed
against foreign goods. But it, too, について言及するd the 可能性
of giving work to tens of thousands of 失業した men and
women. It is seen how very much this argument was in the 空気／公表する
at the time. . .
The first 広大な／多数の／重要な discussion of this 事柄, as of nearly
all social and 経済的な problems, occurred in England in the
middle of the i6th century or rather earlier, during the
統治するs of Henry VIII and Edward VI. In this 関係 we
cannot but について言及する a 一連の writings, written 明らかに
at the 最新の in the 1530's, two of which at any 率 are
believed
to have been by Clement Armstrong. . .He
明確に表すs it, for example, in the に引き続いて 条件: 'By
推論する／理由 of 広大な／多数の／重要な 豊富 of strange 商品／売買するs and wares
brought 年一回の into England hath not only 原因（となる）d scarcity of
money, but hath destroyed all handicrafts, whereby 広大な／多数の／重要な
number of ありふれた people should have 作品 to get money to 支払う／賃金
for their meat and drink, which of very necessity must live
idly and beg and steal'.
The best instance to my knowledge of a typically
mercantilist discussion of a 明言する／公表する of 事件／事情／状勢s of this 肉親，親類d is
the 審議s in the English House of ありふれたs 関心ing the
scarcity of money, which occurred in 1621, when a serious
不景気 had 始める，決める in, 特に in the cloth 輸出（する）. The
条件s 'vere 述べるd very 明確に by one of the most
影響力のある members of 議会, Sir Edwin Sandys. He
明言する／公表するd that the 農業者 and the artificer had to 苦しむ almost
everywhere, that ぼんやり現れるs were standing idle for want of money
in the country, and that 小作農民s were 軍隊d to repudiate
their 契約s, 'not (thanks be to God) for want of fruits
of the earth, but for want of money'. The 状況／情勢 led to
詳細（に述べる）d enquiries into where the money could have got to,
the want of which was felt so 激しく. 非常に／多数の attacks were
directed against all persons who were supposed to have
与える／捧げるd either to an 輸出（する） (輸出（する） 黒字／過剰) of precious
metals, or to their 見えなくなる on account of corresponding
activities within the country.
Mercantilists were conscious that their 政策, as Professor
Heckscher puts it, 'killed two birds with one 石／投石する'. 'On the one
手渡す the country was rid of an unwelcome 黒字／過剰 of goods, which
was believed to result in 失業, while on the other the
total 在庫／株 of money in the country was 増加するd',
with the resulting advantages of a 落ちる in the 率 of 利益／興味.
It is impossible to 熟考する／考慮する the notions to which the
mercantilists were led by their actual experiences, without
perceiving that there has been a cbronic 傾向 throughout
human history for the propensity to save to be stronger than the
誘導 to 投資する. The 証拠不十分 of the 誘導 to 投資する has been at all times the
重要な to the 経済的な problem. To-day the explanation of the
証拠不十分 of this 誘導 may 主として 嘘（をつく） in the extent of
存在するing accumulations; 反して, 以前は, 危険s and hazards of
all 肉親，親類d may have played a larger part. But the result is the
same. The 願望（する） of, the individual to augment his personal
wealth by 棄権するing from 消費 has usually been stronger
than the 誘導 to the entrepreneur to augment the 国家の
wealth by 雇うing 労働 on the construction of 持続する 資産s.
(4) The mercantilists were under no illusions as to
the nationalistic character of their 政策s and their 傾向
to 促進する war. It was 国家の advantage and 親族 strength
at which they were admittedly 目的（とする）ing.
We may criticise them for the 明らかな 無関心／冷淡 with which
they 受託するd this 必然的な consequence of an international
通貨の system. But intellectually their realism is much
より望ましい to the 混乱させるd thinking of 同時代の 支持するs of
an international 直す／買収する，八百長をするd gold 基準 and laissez-faire in
international lending, who believe that it is 正確に these
政策s which will best 促進する peace.
For in an economy 支配する to money 契約s and customs more
or いっそう少なく 直す／買収する，八百長をするd over an appreciable period of time, where the
量 of the 国内の 循環／発行部数 and the 国内の 率 of
利益／興味 are まず第一に／本来 決定するd by the balance of 支払い（額）s, as
they were in 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain before the war, there is no 正統派の
means open to the 当局 for 反対するing 失業 at home
except by struggling for an 輸出（する） 黒字／過剰 and an 輸入する of the 通貨の metal at the expense of their
隣人s. Never in history was there a method 工夫するd ofsuch
efficacy for setting each country's advantage at variance with
its 隣人s' as the international gold (or, 以前は, silver)
基準. For it made 国内の 繁栄 直接／まっすぐに 扶養家族 on a
競争の激しい 追跡 of markets and a 競争の激しい appetite for the
precious metals. When by happy 事故 the new 供給（する）s of gold
and silver were comparatively abundant, the struggle might be
somewhat abated. But with the growth of wealth and the
減らすing ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する, it has tended to
become ますます internecine. The part played by 正統派の
経済学者s, whose ありふれた sense has been insufficient to check
their 欠陥のある logic, has been 悲惨な to the 最新の 行為／法令／行動する. For
when in their blind struggle for an escape, some countries have
thrown off the 義務s which had 以前 （判決などを）下すd
impossible an 自治権のある 率 of 利益／興味, these 経済学者s have
taught that a 復古／返還 of the former shackles is a necessary
first step to a general 回復.
In truth the opposite 持つ／拘留するs good. It is the 政策 of an
自治権のある 率 of 利益／興味, unimpeded by international
最大の関心事s, and of a 国家の 投資 programme directed
to an optimum level of 国内の 雇用 which is twice blessed
in the sense that it helps ourselves and our 隣人s at the
same time. And it is the 同時の 追跡 of these 政策s
by all countries together which is 有能な of 回復するing 経済的な
health and strength 国祭的な, whether we 手段 it by the
level of 国内の 雇用 or by the 容積／容量 of international
貿易（する）.
IV
The mercantilists perceived the 存在 of the problem
without 存在 able to 押し進める their 分析 to the point of solving
it. But the classical school ignored the problem, as a
consequence of introducing into their premisses 条件s which
伴う／関わるd its 非，不，無-存在; with the result of creating a
cleavage between the 結論s of 経済的な theory and those of
ありふれた sense. The 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の 業績／成就 of the classical
theory was to 打ち勝つ the beliefs of the 'natural man' and, at
the same time, to be wrong. As Professor Heckscher 表明するs it:
If, then, the underlying 態度 に向かって money and the
構成要素 from which money was created did not alter in the
period between the Crusades and the 18th century, it follows
that we are 取引，協定ing with 深い-rooted notions. Perhaps the
same notions have 固執するd even beyond the 500 years
含むd in that period, even though not nearly to the same
degree as the '恐れる of goods'. With the exception of the
period of laissez-faire, no age has been 解放する／自由な from
these ideas. It was only the unique 知識人 tenacity of laissez-faire
that for a time overcame the beliefs of the 'natural man'
on this point.
It 要求するd the unqualified 約束 of doctrinaire laissez-faire
to wipe out the '恐れる of goods'. . .[which] is
the most natural 態度 of the 'natural man' in a money
economy. 解放する／自由な 貿易（する） 否定するd the 存在 of factors which
appeared to be obvious, and was doomed to be discredited in
the 注目する，もくろむs of the man in the street as soon as laissez-faire
could no longer 持つ／拘留する the minds of men enchained in its
ideology.
I remember Bonar 法律's mingled 激怒（する） and perplexity in 直面する of
the 経済学者s, because they were 否定するing what was obvious. He
was 深く，強烈に troubled for an explanation. One recurs to the analogy
between the sway of the classical school of 経済的な theory and that
of 確かな 宗教s. For it is a far greater 演習 of the
potency of an idea to exorcise the obvious than to introduce into
men's ありふれた notions the recondite and the remote.
V
There remains an 連合した, but 際立った, 事柄 where for
centuries, indeed for several millenniums, enlightened opinion
held for 確かな and obvious a doctrine which the classical
school has repudiated as childish, but which deserves
rehabilitation and honour. I mean the doctrine that the 率 of
利益／興味 is not self-adjusting at a level best ふさわしい to the
social advantage but 絶えず tends to rise too high, so that a
wise 政府 is 関心d to 抑制（する） it by 法令 and custom and
even by invoking the 許可／制裁s of the moral 法律.
準備／条項s against usury are amongst the most 古代の 経済的な
practices of which we have 記録，記録的な／記録する. The 破壊 of the
誘導 to 投資する by an 過度の liquidity-preference was the
優れた evil, the prime 妨害 to the growth of wealth,
in the 古代の and 中世 worlds. And 自然に so, since
確かな of the 危険s and hazards of 経済的な life 減らす the
ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 whilst others serve to 増加する
the preference for liquidity. In a world, therefore, which no one
reckoned to be 安全な, it was almost 必然的な that the 率 of
利益／興味, unless it was 抑制（する）d by every 器具 at the
処分 of society, would rise too high to 許す of an 適する
誘導 to 投資する.
I was brought up to believe that the 態度 of the 中世
Church to the 率 of 利益／興味 was inherently absurd, and that
the subtle discussions 目的（とする）d at distinguishing the return on
money-貸付金s from the return to active 投資 were 単に
jesuitical 試みる／企てるs to find a practical escape from a foolish
theory. But I now read these discussions as an honest 知識人 成果／努力 to
keep separate what the classical theory has inextricably 混乱させるd
together, すなわち, the 率 of 利益／興味 and the ごくわずかの
efficiency of 資本／首都. For it now seems （疑いを）晴らす that the
disquisitions of the schoolmen were directed に向かって the
elucidation of a 決まり文句／製法 which should 許す the schedule of the
ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 to be high, whilst using 支配する and
custom and the moral 法律 to keep 負かす／撃墜する the 率 of 利益／興味.
Even Adam Smith was 極端に 穏健な in his 態度 to the
usury 法律s. For 嘘（をつく） was 井戸／弁護士席 aware that individual 貯金 may be
吸収するd either by 投資 or by 負債s, and that there is no
安全 that they will find an 出口 in the former.
その上に, he favoured a low 率 of 利益／興味 as 増加するing the
chance of 貯金 finding their 出口 in new 投資 rather
than in 負債s; and for this 推論する／理由, in a passage for which he was
厳しく taken to 仕事 by Bentham,
he defended a 穏健な 使用／適用 of the usury
法律s.
Moreover, Bentham's 批評s were おもに on the ground that
Adam Smith's Scotch 警告を与える was too 厳しい on 'projectors' and
that a 最大限 率 of 利益／興味 would leave too little 利ざや for
the reward of 合法的 and socially advisable 危険s. For
Bentham understood by projectors 'all such persons, as, in
the 追跡 of wealth, or even of any other 反対する, endeavour, by
the 援助 of wealth, to strike into any channel of
発明. . .upon all such persons as, in the line of
any of their 追跡s, 目的（とする） at anything that can be called 改良. . .It
落ちるs, in short, upon every 使用／適用 of the human 力／強力にするs, in
which ingenuity stands in need of wealth for its 援助.' Of
course Bentham is 権利 in 抗議するing against 法律s which stand in
the way of taking 合法的 危険s. 'A 慎重な man', Bentham
continues, 'will not, in these circumstances, 選ぶ out the good
事業／計画（する）s
from the bad, for he will not meddle with 事業／計画（する）s at
all.'
It may be 疑問d, perhaps, whether the above is just what
Adam Smith ーするつもりであるd by his 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語. Or is it that we are 審理，公聴会 in
Bentham (though 令状ing in March 1787 from 'Crichoff in White
Russia') the 発言する／表明する of nineteenth-century England speaking to the
eighteenth? For nothing short of the exuberance of the greatest
age of the 誘導 to 投資 could have made it possible
to lose sight of the theoretical 可能性 of its
insufficiency.
VI
It is convenient to について言及する at this point the strange, unduly
neglected prophet Silvio Gesell (1862-1930),
whose work 含む／封じ込めるs flashes of 深い insight and who only just
failed to reach 負かす／撃墜する to the essence of the 事柄. In the
戦後の years his 充てるs 砲撃するd me with copies of his
作品; yet, 借りがあるing to 確かな palpable defects in the argument, I
完全に failed to discover their 長所. As is often the 事例／患者
with imperfectly analysed intuitions, their significance only
became 明らかな after I had reached my own 結論s in my own
way. 一方／合間, like other academic 経済学者s, I 扱う／治療するd his
profoundly 初めの strivings as 存在 no better than those of a
crank. Since few of the readers of this 調書をとる／予約する are likely to be
井戸／弁護士席 熟知させるd with the significance of Gesell, I will give to
him what would be さもなければ a disproportionate space.
Gesell was a successful German merchant in Buenos 空気／公表するs who was led to the 熟考する／考慮する of 通貨の problems by
the 危機 of the late 'eighties, which was 特に violent in
and many 調書をとる／予約するs and 小冊子s followed until he retired to
Switzerland in 1906 as a man of some means, able to 充てる the
last １０年間s of his life to the two most delightful 占領／職業s
open to those who do not have to earn their living, authorship
and 実験の farming.
The first section of his 基準 work was published in 1906
at Les Hauts Geneveys, Switzerland, under the 肩書を与える Die
Verwirklichung des Rechtes auf dem vollen
Arbeitsertrag, and the second section in 1911 at Berlin
the English 見解／翻訳／版 (translated by Mr Philip Pye) 存在 called The
Natural 経済的な Order. In April 1919 Gesell joined the
short-lived Soviet 閣僚 of Bavaria as their 大臣 of
財政／金融, 存在 subsequently tried by 法廷，裁判所-戦争の. The last
１０年間 of his life was spent in Berlin and Switzerland and
充てるd to 宣伝. Gesell, 製図／抽選 to himself the
半分-宗教的な fervour which had 以前は centred 一連の会議、交渉／完成する Henry
George, became the 深い尊敬の念を抱くd prophet of a 教団 with many thousand
disciples throughout the world. The first international
条約 of the スイスの and German Freiland-Freigeld
Bund and 類似の organisations from many countries was held in
Basle in 1923. Since his death in 1930 much of the peculiar type
of fervour which doctrines such as his are 有能な of exciting
has been コースを変えるd to other (in my opinion いっそう少なく 著名な) prophets.
Dr Buchi is the leader of the movement in England, but its literature seems to be 分配するd from San Antonio,
Texas, its main strength lying to-day in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs, where
Professor Irving Fisher, alone amongst academic 経済学者s, has
recognised its significance.
In spite of the prophetic trappings with which his 充てるs
have decorated him, Gesell's main 調書をとる／予約する is written in 冷静な／正味の,
科学の language; though it is suffused throughout by a more
熱烈な, a more emotional devotion to social 司法（官） than some
think decent in a scientist. The part which derives from Henry
George,though doubtless an important source of the movement's strength,
is of altogether 第２位 利益／興味. The 目的 of the 調書をとる／予約する as a
whole may be 述べるd as the 設立 of an anti-Marxian
社会主義, a reaction against laissez-faire built on
theoretical 創立／基礎s 全く unlike those of Marx in 存在
based on a repudiation instead of on an 受託 of the
classical hypotheses, and on an unfettering of 競争
instead of its 廃止. I believe that the 未来 will learn
more from the spirit of Gesell than from that of Marx. The
preface to The Natural 経済的な Order will 示す to the
reader, if he will 言及する to it, the moral 質 of Gesell. The
answer to Marxism is, I think, to be 設立する along the lines of
this preface.
Gesell's 明確な／細部 出資／貢献 to the theory of money and
利益／興味 is as follows. In the first place, he distinguishes
明確に between the 率 of 利益／興味 and the ごくわずかの efficiency
of 資本／首都, and he argues that it is the 率 of 利益／興味 which
始める，決めるs a 限界 to the 率 of growth of real 資本／首都. Next, he
points out that the 率 of 利益／興味 is a 純粋に 通貨の
現象 and that the peculiarity of money, from which flows
the significance of the money 率 of 利益／興味, lies in the fact
that its 所有権 as a means of 蓄える／店ing wealth 伴う／関わるs the
支えるもの／所有者 in ごくわずかの carrying 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金s, and that forms of wealth,
such as 在庫／株s of 商品／必需品s which do 伴う／関わる carrying 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金s, in fact 産する／生じる a return
because of the 基準 始める，決める by money. He 特記する／引用するs the comparative
安定 of the 率 of 利益／興味 throughout the ages as 証拠
that it cannot depend on 純粋に physical characters, inasmuch as
the variation of the latter from one 時代 to another must have
been incalculably greater than the 観察するd changes in the 率
of 利益／興味; i.e. (in my terminology) the 率 of 利益／興味, which
depends on constant psychological characters, has remained
stable, whilst the 広範囲にわたって fluctuating characters, which まず第一に／本来
決定する the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都,
have 決定するd not the 率 of 利益／興味 but the 率 at which
the (more or いっそう少なく) given 率 of 利益／興味 許すs the 在庫／株 of
real 資本／首都 to grow.
But there is a 広大な／多数の／重要な defect in Gesell's theory. He shows how
it is only the 存在 of a 率 of money 利益／興味 which 許すs
a 産する／生じる to be 得るd from lending out 在庫／株s of 商品／必需品s.
His 対話 between Robinson Crusoe and a stranger
is a most excellent 経済的な parableｾas
good as anything of the 肉親，親類d that has been writtenｾto 論証する this point. But, having
given the 推論する／理由 why the money-率 of 利益／興味 unlike most
商品／必需品 率s of 利益／興味 cannot be 消極的な, he altogether
overlooks the need of an explanation why the money-率 of
利益／興味 is 肯定的な, and he fails to explain why the money-率
of 利益／興味 is not 治める／統治するd (as the classical school 持続するs)
by the 基準 始める，決める by the 産する／生じる on 生産力のある 資本／首都. This is
because the notion of liquidity-preference had escaped him. He
has 建設するd only half a theory of the 率 of 利益／興味.
The incompleteness of his theory is doubtless the explanation
of his work having 苦しむd neglect at the 手渡すs of the academic
world. にもかかわらず he had carried his theory far enough to lead
him to a practical 推薦, which may carry with it the
essence of what is needed, though it is not feasible in the form in
which he 提案するd it. He argues that the growth of real 資本／首都
is held 支援する by the money-率 of 利益／興味, and that if this
ブレーキ were 除去するd the growth of real 資本／首都 would be, in the
modern world, so 早い that a 無 money-率 of 利益／興味 would
probably be 正当化するd, not indeed forthwith, but within a
comparatively short period of time. Thus the prime necessity is
to 減ずる the money-率 of 利益／興味, and this, he pointed out,
can be 影響d by 原因（となる）ing money to 背負い込む carrying-costs just
like other 在庫／株s of barren goods. This led him to the famous
prescription of 'stamped' money, with which his 指名する is 主として
associated and which has received the blessing of Professor
Irving Fisher. によれば this 提案 通貨 公式文書，認めるs (though
it would 明確に need to 適用する 同様に to some forms at least of
bank-money) would only 保持する their value by 存在 stamped each
month, like an 保険 card, with stamps 購入（する）d at a 地位，任命する
office. The cost of the stamps could, of course, be 直す／買収する，八百長をするd at any
appropriate 人物／姿／数字. によれば my theory it should be 概略で
equal to the 超過 of the money-率 of 利益／興味 (apart from the
stamps) over the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 corresponding to
a 率 of new 投資 両立できる with 十分な 雇用. The
actual 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金 示唆するd by Gesell was 1 per mil. per week,
同等（の） to 5.2 per cent per 年. This would be too high in
存在するing 条件s, but the 訂正する 人物／姿／数字, which would have to
be changed from time to time, could only be reached by 裁判，公判 and
error.
The idea behind stamped money is sound. It is, indeed,
possible that means might be 設立する to 適用する it in practice on a
modest 規模. But there are many difficulties which Gesell did
not 直面する. In particular, he was unaware that money was not unique
in having a liquidity-賞与金 大（公）使館員d to it, but 異なるd only
in degree from many other articles, deriving its importance from
having a greater liquidity-賞与金 than any other article. Thus if 通貨 公式文書，認めるs were to be 奪うd of
their liquidity-賞与金 by the stamping system, a long 一連の
代用品，人s would step into their shoesｾbank-money,
負債s at call, foreign money, jewellery and the precious metals
一般に, and so 前へ／外へ. As I have について言及するd above, there have
been times when it was probably the craving for the 所有権 of
land, 独立して of its 産する／生じる, which served to keep up the
率 of 利益／興味;ｾthough under
Gesell's system this 可能性 would have been 除去するd by
land nationalisation.
VII
The theories which we have 診察するd above are directed, in
実体, to the 選挙権を持つ／選挙人 of 効果的な 需要・要求する which depends
on the 十分なこと of the 誘導 to 投資する. It is no new
thing, however, to ascribe the evils of 失業 to the
insufficiency of the other 選挙権を持つ／選挙人, すなわち, the insufficiency
of the propensity to 消費する. But this 代案／選択肢 explanation of
the 経済的な evils of the dayｾ平等に
人気がない with the classical 経済学者sｾplayed
a much smaller part in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century
thinking and has only gathered 軍隊 in comparatively 最近の
times.
Though （民事の）告訴s of under-消費 were a very 子会社
面 of mercantilist thought, Professor Heckscher 引用するs a
number of examples of what he calls 'the 深い-rooted belief in
the 公共事業（料金）／有用性 of 高級な and the evil of thrift. Thrift, in fact,
was regarded as the 原因（となる） of 失業, and for two 推論する／理由s:
in the first place, because real income was believed to 減らす
by the 量 of money which did not enter into 交流, and
secondly, because saving was believed to 身を引く money from
循環／発行部数.'
In 1598 Laffemas (Les Tr駸ors et richesses 注ぐ mettre
l'Estat en Splendeur) 公然と非難するd the objectors to the use of French silks on the ground that all purchasers of French
高級な goods created a 暮らし for the poor, 反して the miser
原因（となる）d them to die in 苦しめる'.
In 1662 Petty 正当化するd 'entertainments, magnificent shews,
triumphal arches, etc.', on the ground that their costs flowed
支援する into the pockets of brewers, パン職人s, tailors, shoemakers and
so 前へ／外へ. Fortrey 正当化するd '超過 of apparel'. 出身の Schr?ter
(i686) deprecated sumptuary 規則s and 宣言するd that he
would wish that 陳列する，発揮する in 着せる／賦与するing and the like were even
greater. Barbon (1690) wrote that 'Prodigality is a 副／悪徳行為 that is
prejudicial to the Man, but not to
貿易（する）. . .Covetousness is a 副／悪徳行為, prejudicial both to
Man and 貿易（する）.'
In 1695 Cary argued that if everybody spent more, all would
得る larger incomes 'and might then live more
plentifully'.
But it was by Bernard Mandeville's Fable of the Bees that
Barbon's opinion was おもに popularised, a 調書をとる／予約する 罪人／有罪を宣告するd as a
nuisance by the 大陪審 of Middlesex in 1723, which stands out
in the history of the moral sciences for its scandalous
評判. Only one man is 記録，記録的な／記録するd as having spoken a good word
for it, すなわち Dr Johnson, who 宣言するd that it did not puzzle
him, but 'opened his 注目する，もくろむs into real life very much'. The nature
of the 調書をとる／予約する's wickedness can be best 伝えるd by Leslie Stephen's
要約 in the Dictionary of 国家の Biography:
Mandeville gave 広大な／多数の／重要な offence by this 調書をとる／予約する, in which a
冷笑的な system of morality was made attractive by ingenious
paradoxes. . .His doctrine that 繁栄 was
増加するd by 支出 rather than by saving fell in with
many 現在の 経済的な fallacies not yet extinct.
Assuming with the
ascetics that human 願望（する）s were essentially evil and
therefore produced '私的な 副／悪徳行為s' and assuming with the
ありふれた 見解（をとる） that wealth was a 'public 利益', he easily
showed that all civilisation 暗示するd the 開発 of
vicious propensities. . .
The text of the Fable of the Bees is an allegorical
poemｾ'The 不平（をいう）ing 蜂の巣, or Knaves
turned honest', in which is 始める，決める 前へ／外へ the appalling 苦境 of a
繁栄する community in which all the 国民s suddenly take it
into their 長，率いるs to abandon luxurious living, and the 明言する／公表する to
削減（する） 負かす／撃墜する 軍備s, in the 利益／興味s of Saving:
No Honour now could be content,
To live and 借りがある for what was spent,
Liv'ries in 仲買人's shops are hung;
They part with Coaches for a song;
Sell stately Horses by whole 始める，決めるs
and Country-Houses to 支払う／賃金 負債s.
Vain cost is shunn'd as moral 詐欺;
They have no 軍隊s kept Abroad;
Laugh at th' Esteem of Foreigners,
And empty Glory got by Wars;
They fight, but for their Country's sake,
When 権利 or Liberty's at 火刑／賭ける.
The haughty Chloe
契約s th' expensive 法案 of Fare,
And wears her strong 控訴 a whole Year.
And what is the result?ｾ
Now mind the glorious 蜂の巣, and see
How Honesty and 貿易（する） agree:
The Shew is gone, it thins apace;
And looks with やめる another 直面する,
For 'twas not only they that went,
By whom 広大な sums were 年一回の spent;
But Multitudes that lived on them,
Were daily forc'd to do the same.
In vain to other 貿易（する）s they'd 飛行機で行く;
All were o'er-在庫／株d accordingly.
The price of Land and Houses 落ちるs;
Mirac'lous Palaces whose 塀で囲むs,
Like those of Thebes, were rais'd by Play,
Are to be let. . .
The Building 貿易（する） is やめる destroy'd,
Artificers are not 雇う'd;
No limner for his Art is fam'd,
石／投石する-切断機，沿岸警備艇s, Carvers are not nam'd.
So 'The Moral' is:
明らかにする Virtue can't make Nations live
In Splendour. They that would 生き返らせる
A Golden Age, must be as 解放する／自由な,
For Acorns as for Honesty.
Two 抽出するs from the commentary which follows the allegory
will show that the above was not without a theoretical basis:
As this 慎重な economy, which some people call Saving, is
in 私的な families the most 確かな method to 増加する an
広い地所, so some imagine that, whether a country be barren or
実りの多い／有益な, the same method if 一般に 追求するd (which they
think practicable) will have the same 影響 upon a whole
nation, and that, for example, the English might be much
richer than they are, if they would be as frugal as some of
their 隣人s. This, I think, is an error.
On the contrary, Mandeville 結論するs:
The 広大な／多数の／重要な art to make a nation happy, and what we call
繁栄するing, consists in giving everybody an 適切な時期 of
存在 雇うd; which to compass, let a 政府's first
care be to 促進する as 広大な／多数の／重要な a variety of Manufacures, Arts
and Handicrafts as human wit can invent; and the second to
encourage 農業 and 漁業 in all their 支店s, that
the whole Earth may be forccd to 発揮する itself 同様に as Man.
It is from this 政策 and not from the trifling 規則s
of Lavishness and Frugality that the greatness and felicity
of Nations must be 推定する／予想するd; for let the value of Gold and
Silver rise or 落ちる, the enjoyment of all Societies will ever
depend upon the Fruits of the Earth and the 労働 of the
People; both which joined together are a more 確かな , a more
inexhaustible
and a more real Treasure than the Gold of Brazil or the
Silver of Potosi.
No wonder that such wicked 感情s called 負かす／撃墜する the
opprobrium of two centuries of moralists and 経済学者s who felt
much more virtuous in 所有／入手 of their 厳格な，質素な doctrine that
no sound 治療（薬） was discoverable except in the 最大の of thrift
and economy both by the individual and by the 明言する／公表する. Petty's
'entertainments, magnificent shews, triumphal arches, etc.' gave
place to the penny-知恵 of Gladstonian 財政／金融 and to a 明言する／公表する
system which 'could not afford' hospitals, open spaces, noble
buildings, even the 保護 of its 古代の monuments, far
いっそう少なく the splendours of music and the 演劇, all of which were
consigned to the 私的な charity or magnanimity of improvident
individuals.
The doctrine did not 再現する in respectable circles for
another century, until in the later 段階 of Malthus the notion
of the insufficiency of 効果的な 需要・要求する takes a 限定された place
as a 科学の explanation of 失業. Since I have already
dealt with this somewhat fully in my essay on
Malthus,
it will be 十分な if I repeat here one or two characteristic
passages which I have already 引用するd in my essay:
We see in almost every part of the world 広大な 力／強力にするs of
生産／産物 which are not put into 活動／戦闘, and I explain this
現象 by 説 that from the want of a proper
配当 of the actual produce 適する 動機s are not
furnished to continued 生産／産物. . .I distinctly
持続する that an 試みる／企てる to 蓄積する very 速く, which
やむを得ず 暗示するs a かなりの diminution of unproductive
消費, by 大いに impairing the usual 動機s to
生産／産物 must 未熟に check the 進歩 of
wealth. . . But if it be true that an 試みる／企てる to
蓄積する very 速く will occasion such a 分割 between
労働 and 利益（をあげる）s as almost to destroy both the 動機 and
the 力／強力にする of 未来 accumulation and その結果 the 力／強力にする
of 持続するing and em-
策略ing an 増加するing 全住民, must it not be
定評のある that such an 試みる／企てる to 蓄積する, or that
saving too much, may be really prejudicial to a
country?
The question is whether this stagnation of 資本／首都, and
その後の stagnation in the densand for 労働 arising from
増加するd 生産／産物 without an 適する 割合 of
unproductive 消費 on the part of the landlords and
資本主義者s, could take place without prejudice to the
country, without occasioning a いっそう少なく degree both of happiness
and wealth than would have occurred if the unproductive
消費 of the landlords and 資本主義者s had been so
割合d to the natural 黒字／過剰 of the society as to have
continued 連続する the 動機s to 生産／産物, and
妨げるd first an unnatural 需要・要求する for 労働 and then a
necessary and sudden diminution of such 需要・要求する. But if this
be so, how can it be said with truth that parsimony, though
it may be prejudicial to the 生産者s, cannot be prejudicial
to the 明言する／公表する; or that an 増加する of unproductive 消費
の中で landlords and 資本主義者s may not いつかs be the
proper 治療（薬） for a 明言する／公表する of things in which the 動機s to
生産／産物 fail?
Adam Smith has 明言する／公表するd that 資本／首都s are 増加するd by
parsimony, that every frugal man is a public benefactor, and
that the 増加する of wealth depends upon the balance of
produce above 消費. That these propositions are true
to a 広大な／多数の／重要な extent is perfectly
unquestionable. . .But it is やめる obvious that
they are not true to an 不明確な／無期限の extent, and that the
原則s of saving, 押し進めるd to 超過, would destroy the
動機 to 生産／産物. If every person were 満足させるd with the
simplest food, the poorest 着せる／賦与するing, and the meanest houses,
it is 確かな that no other sort of food, 着せる／賦与するing, and
宿泊するing would be in 存在. . .The two extremes
are obvious; and it follows that there must be some
中間の point, though the 資源s of political economy
may not be able to ascertain it, where, taking into
consideration both the 力／強力にする to produce and the will to
消費する, the 激励 to the 増加する of wealth is the
greatest.
直面する="Symbol">ｾnot to the 消費者s. What, I would
ask, would become of the 需要・要求する for 商品／必需品s, if all
消費 except bread and water were 一時停止するd for the
next half-year? What an accumulation of 商品／必需品s! Quels
debouch駸! What a prodigious market would this event
occasion!
Ricardo, however, was 石／投石する-deaf to what Malthus was 説.
The last echo of the 論争 is to be 設立する in John Stuart
Mill's discussion of his 給料-基金 theory,
which in his own mind played a 決定的な part in his 拒絶 of the
later 段階 of Malthus, まっただ中に the discussions of which he had,
of course, been brought up. Mill's 後継者s 拒絶するd his
給料-基金 theory but overlooked the fact that Mill's refutation
of Malthus depended on it. Their method was to 解任する the
problem from the corpus of 経済的なs not by solving it but
by not について言及するing it. It altogether disappeared from 論争.
Mr Cairncross, searching recently for traces of it amongst the
minor Victorians,
has 設立する even いっそう少なく, perhaps, than might have been
推定する／予想するd.
Theories of under-消費 hibernated until the 外見 in
1889 of The Physiology of 産業, by J. A. Hobson
and A. F. Mummery, the first and most 重要な of many
容積／容量s in which for nearly fifty years Mr Hobson has flung
himself with unflagging, but almost unavailing, ardour and
courage
against the 階級s of orthodoxy. Though it is so 完全に
forgotten to-day, the 出版（物） of this 調書をとる／予約する 示すs, in a sense,
an 時代 in 経済的な thought.
The Physiology of 産業 was written in 共同
with A. F. Mummery. Mr Hobson has told how the 調書をとる／予約する （機の）カム to be
written as follows:
It was not until the middle 'eighties that my 経済的な
heterodoxy began to take 形態／調整. Though the Henry George
（選挙などの）運動をする against land values and the 早期に agitation of
さまざまな 社会主義者 groups against the 明白な 圧迫 of
the working classes, coupled with the 発覚s of the two
Booths regarding the poverty of London, made a 深い
impression on my feelings, they did not destroy my 約束 in
Political Economy. That （機の）カム from what may be called an
偶発の 接触する. While teaching at a school in Exeter I
（機の）カム into personal relations with a 商売／仕事 man 指名するd
Mummery, known then and afterwards as a 広大な／多数の／重要な mountaineer who
had discovered another way up the Matterhorn and who, in
1895, was killed in an 試みる／企てる to climb the famous Himalayan
mountain Nanga Parbat. My intercourse with him, I need hardly
say, did not 嘘（をつく） on this physical 計画（する）. But he was a mental
登山者 同様に, with a natural 注目する，もくろむ for a path of his own
finding and a sublime 無視（する） of 知識人 当局.
This man entangled me in a 論争 about 過度の
saving, which he regarded as 責任がある the
under-雇用 of 資本／首都 and 労働 in periods of bad
貿易（する）. For a long time I sought to 反対する his arguments by
the use of the 正統派の 経済的な 武器s. But at length he
納得させるd me and I went in with him to (a)手の込んだ／(v)詳述する the
over-saving argument in a 調書をとる／予約する する権利を与えるd The Physiology of
産業, which was published in 1889. This was the first
open step in my heretical career, and I did not in the least
realise its momentous consequences. For just at that time I
had given up my scholastic 地位，任命する and was 開始 a new line of
work as University 拡張 Lecturer in 経済的なs and
Literature. The first shock （機の）カム in a 拒絶 of the London
拡張 Board to 許す me to
申し込む／申し出 courses of Political Economy. This was 予定, I
learned, to the 介入 of an 経済的な Professor who had
read my 調書をとる／予約する and considered it as 同等（の） in rationality
to an 試みる／企てる to 証明する the flatness of the earth. How could
there be any 限界 to the 量 of useful saving when every
item of saving went to 増加する the 資本／首都 structure and the
基金 for 支払う／賃金ing 給料? Sound 経済学者s could not fail to
見解（をとる） with horror an argument which sought to check the source
of all 産業の 進歩.
Another 利益／興味ing personal experience helped to bring home
to me the sense of my iniquity. Though 妨げるd from
lecturing on 経済的なs in London, I had been 許すd by the
greater liberality of the Oxford University 拡張
Movement to 演説（する）／住所 audiences in the 州s, 限定するing
myself to practical 問題／発行するs relating to working-class life.
Now it happened at this time that the Charity Organisation
Society was planning a lecture （選挙などの）運動をする upon 経済的な
支配するs and 招待するd me to 準備する a course. I had 表明するd
my 乗り気 to 請け負う this new lecture work, when
suddenly, without explanation, the 招待 was 孤立した.
Even then I hardly realised that in appearing to question the
virtue of 制限のない thrift I had committed the unpardonable
sin.
In this 早期に work Mr Hobson with his 協力者 表明するd
himself with more direct 言及／関連 to the classical 経済的なs (in
which he had been brought up) than in his later writings; and for
this 推論する／理由, 同様に as because it is the first 表現 of his
theory, I will 引用する from it to show how 重要な and
井戸／弁護士席-設立するd were the authors' 批評s and intuitions. They
point out in their preface as follows the nature of the
結論s which they attack:
Saving 濃厚にするs and spending impoverishes the community
along with the individual, and it may be 一般に defined as
an 主張 that the 効果的な love of money is the root of
all 経済的な good. Not 単に does it 濃厚にする the thrifty in
dividual himself, but it raises 給料, gives work to the
失業した, and scatters blessings on every 味方する. From the
daily papers to the 最新の 経済的な treatise, from the pulpit
to the House of ありふれたs, this 結論 is 繰り返し言うd and
re-明言する／公表するd till it appears 前向きに／確かに impious to question it.
Yet the educated world, supported by the 大多数 of 経済的な
thinkers, up to the 出版（物） of Ricardo's work strenuously
否定するd this doctrine, and its ultimate 受託 was
排他的に 予定 to their 無（不）能 to 会合，会う the now 爆発するd
給料-基金 doctrine. That the 結論 should have 生き残るd
the argument on which it 論理（学）上 stood, can be explained on
no other hypothesis than the 命令（する）ing 当局 of the
広大な／多数の／重要な men who 主張するd it. 経済的な critics have 投機・賭けるd to
attack the theory in 詳細（に述べる）, but they have shrunk appalled
from touching its main 結論s. Our 目的 is to show
that these 結論s are not tenable, that an undue
演習 of the habit of saving is possible, and that such
undue 演習 impoverishes the Community, throws labourers
out of work, 運動s 負かす／撃墜する 給料, and spreads that gloom and
prostration through the 商業の world which is known as
不景気 in 貿易（する）. . .
The 反対する of 生産／産物 is to 供給する '公共事業（料金）／有用性s and
conveniences' for 消費者s, and the 過程 is a continuous
one from the first 扱うing of the raw 構成要素 to the moment
when it is finally 消費するd as a 公共事業（料金）／有用性 or a convenience.
The only use of 資本／首都 存在 to 援助（する） the 生産／産物 of these
公共事業（料金）／有用性s and conveniences, the total used will やむを得ず
変化させる with the total of 公共事業（料金）／有用性s and conveniences daily or
週刊誌 消費するd. Now saving, while it 増加するs the 存在するing
aggregate of 資本／首都, 同時に 減ずるs the 量 of
公共事業（料金）／有用性s and conveniences 消費するd; any undue 演習 of
this habit must, therefore, 原因（となる） an accumulation of 資本／首都
in 超過 of that which is 要求するd for use, and this 超過
will 存在する in the form of general
over-生産／産物.
In the last 宣告，判決 of this passage there appears the root of
Hobson's mistake, すなわち, his supposing that it is a 緩和する of
過度の saving 原因（となる）ing the actual accumulation of 資本／首都 in
超過 of what is 要求するd, which is, in fact, a 第２位 evil
which only occurs through mistakes of foresight; 反して the
最初の／主要な
evil is a propensity to save in 条件s of 十分な 雇用
more than the 同等（の） of the 資本／首都 which is 要求するd, thus
妨げるing 十分な 雇用 except when there is a mistake of
foresight. A page or two later, however, he puts one half of the
事柄, as it seems to me, with 絶対の precision, though still
overlooking the possible r?e of changes in the 率 of 利益／興味
and in the 明言する／公表する of 商売／仕事 信用／信任, factors which he
推定では takes as given:
We are thus brought to the 結論 that the basis on
which all 経済的な teaching since Adam Smith has stood, viz.
that the 量 毎年 produced is 決定するd by the
aggregates of Natural スパイ／執行官s, 資本／首都, and 労働 利用できる,
is erroneous, and that, on the contrary, the 量
produced, while it can never 越える the 限界s 課すd by
these aggregates, may be, and 現実に is, 減ずるd far below
this 最大限 by the check that undue saving and the
consequent accumulation of over-供給（する） 発揮するs on 生産／産物;
i.e. that in the normal 明言する／公表する of modern 産業の
Communities, 消費 限界s 生産／産物 and not 生産／産物
消費.
Finally he notices the 耐えるing of his theory on the 有効性，効力
of the 正統派の 解放する／自由な 貿易（する） arguments:
We also 公式文書，認める that the 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金 of 商業の imbecility, so
自由に 開始する，打ち上げるd by 正統派の 経済学者s against our American
cousins and other 保護貿易論者 Communities, can no longer be
持続するd by any of the 解放する／自由な 貿易（する） arguments hitherto
adduced, since all these are based on the 仮定／引き受けること that
over-供給（する） is impossible.
The その後の argument is, admittedly, incomplete. But it is
the first explicit 声明 of the fact that 資本／首都 is brought
into 存在 not by the propensity to save but in 返答 to
the 需要・要求する resulting from actual and 見込みのある 消費. The
に引き続いて portmanteau quotation 示すs the line of thought:
It should be （疑いを）晴らす that the 資本／首都 of a community cannot
be advantageously 増加するd without a その後の 増加する
in 消費 of 商品／必需品s. . .Every 増加する
an saving and in 資本／首都 要求するs, ーするために be effectual,
a corresponding 増加する in すぐに 未来
消費 .And when we say 未来 consuniption, we do not 言及する to a 未来
of ten, twenty, or fifty years hence, but to a 未来 that is
but little 除去するd from the 現在の. . .If
増加するd thrift or 警告を与える induces people to save more in
the 現在の, they must 同意 to 消費する more in the
未来 .No more 資本／首都 can economically 存在する at any point in the
生産力のある 過程 than is 要求するd to furnish 商品／必需品s
for the 現在の 率 of 消費.It
is （疑いを）晴らす that my thrift in no wise 影響する／感情s the total 経済的な
thrift of the community, but only 決定するs whether a
particular 部分 of the total thrift shall have been
演習d by myself or by somebody else. We shall show how
the thrift of one part of the community has 力／強力にする to 軍隊
another part to live beyond their income. Most
modern 経済学者s 否定する that 消費 could by any
可能性 be insufficient. Can we find any 経済的な 軍隊
at work which might 刺激する a community to this 超過, and if
there be any such 軍隊s are there not efficient checks
供給するd by the 機械装置 of 商業? It will be shown,
firstly, that in every 高度に organised 産業の society
there is 絶えず at work a 軍隊 which 自然に operates
to induce 超過 of thrift; secondly, that the checks 申し立てられた／疑わしい
to be 供給するd by the 機械装置 of 商業 are either wholly
inoperative or are 不十分な to 妨げる 墓／厳粛／彫る／重大な 商業の
evil.
The 簡潔な／要約する answer which Ricardo gave to the 論争s of
Malthus and Chalmers seems to have been 受託するd as
十分な by most later 経済学者s. '生産／産物s are always
bought by 生産／産物s or services; money is only the medium
by which the 交流 is 影響d. Hence the 増加するd
生産／産物 存在 always …を伴ってd by a 対応して
増加するd ability to get and 消費する, there is no 可能性
of Over-生産／産物' (Ricardo, Prin. of 政治家. Econ.
p. 362).
Hobson and Mummery were aware that 利益／興味 was nothing
whatever except 支払い（額） for the use of money.
They also knew 井戸／弁護士席 enough that their 対抗者s would （人命などを）奪う，主張する that
there would be 'such a 落ちる in the 率 of 利益／興味 (or 利益（をあげる）) as will 行為／法令／行動する as a check
upon Saving, and 回復する the proper relation between 生産／産物
and 消費'.
They point out in reply that 'if a 落ちる of 利益（をあげる） is to induce
people to save いっそう少なく, it must operate in one of two ways, either
by inducing them to spend more or by inducing them to produce
いっそう少なく'.
As regards the former they argue that when 利益（をあげる）s 落ちる the
aggregate income of the community is 減ずるd, and 'we cannot
suppose that when the 普通の／平均（する） 率 of incomes is 落ちるing,
individuals will be induced to 増加する their 率 of 消費
by the fact that the 賞与金 upon thrift is 対応して
減らすd'; whilst as for the second 代案／選択肢, 'it is so far
from 存在 our 意向 to 否定する that a 落ちる of 利益（をあげる）, 予定 to
over-供給（する）, will check 生産／産物, that the admission of the
操作／手術 of this check forms the very centre of our
argument'.
にもかかわらず, their theory failed of completeness, essentially on
account of their having no 独立した・無所属 theory of the 率 of
利益／興味; with the result that Mr Hobson laid too much 強調
(特に in his later 調書をとる／予約するs) on under-消費 主要な to
over-投資, in the sense of 無益な 投資, instead
of explaining that a 比較して weak propensity to 消費する helps
to 原因（となる） 失業 by 要求するing and not receiving the
accompaniment of a 補償するing 容積／容量 of new 投資, which,
even if it may いつかs occur 一時的に through errors of
楽観主義, is in general 妨げるd from happening at all by the
見込みのある 利益（をあげる） 落ちるing below the 基準 始める，決める by the 率 of
利益／興味.
Since the war there has been a 洪水／多発 of heretical theories of
under-消費, of which those of Major Douglas are the most
famous. The strength of Major Douglas's advocacy has, of course,
大部分は depended on orthodoxy having no valid reply to much of his destructive 批評. On the other 手渡す, the 詳細（に述べる） of
his diagnosis, in particular the いわゆる A + B
theorem, 含むs much mere mystification. If Major Douglas
had 限られた／立憲的な his B-items to the 財政上の 準備／条項s made
by entrepreneurs to which no 現在の 支出 on 交替／補充s
and 再開s corresponds, he would be nearer the truth. But even
in that 事例／患者 it is necessary to 許す for the 可能性 of
these 準備／条項s 存在 相殺する by new 投資 in other
directions 同様に as by 増加するd 支出 on 消費.
Major Douglas is する権利を与えるd to （人命などを）奪う，主張する, as against some of his
正統派の adversaries, that he at least has not been wholly
oblivious of the 優れた problem of our 経済的な system. Yet
he has scarcely 設立するd an equal （人命などを）奪う，主張する to 階級ｾa 私的な, perhaps, but not a major in the
勇敢に立ち向かう army of 異端者sｾwith
Mandeville, Malthus, Gesell and Hobson, who, に引き続いて their
intuitions, have preferred to see the truth obscurely and
imperfectly rather than to 持続する error, reached indeed with
clearness and consistency and by 平易な logic but on hypotheses
不適切な to the facts.