一時期／支部 24
CONCLUDING NOTES ON THE SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY TOWARDS WHICH THE GENERAL THEORY MIGHT LEAD
I
The 優れた faults of the 経済的な society in which we
live are its 失敗 to 供給する for 十分な 雇用 and its
独断的な and inequitable 配当 of wealth and incomes. The
耐えるing of the foregoing theory on the first of these is obvious.
But there are also two important 尊敬（する）・点s in which it is 関連した
to the second.
Since the end of the nineteenth century 重要な 進歩
に向かって the 除去 of very 広大な／多数の／重要な 不平等s of wealth and
income has been 達成するd through the 器具 of direct
課税ｾ所得税 and surtax and
death 義務sｾ特に in 広大な／多数の／重要な
Britain. Many people would wish to see this 過程 carried much
その上の, but they are deterred by two considerations; partly by
the 恐れる of making skilful 回避s too much 価値（がある） while and also
of 減らすing unduly the 動機 に向かって 危険-taking, but おもに,
I think, by the belief that the growth of 資本／首都 depends upon
the strength of the 動機 に向かって individual saving and that for
a large 割合 of this growth we are 扶養家族 on the 貯金
of the rich out of their superfluity. Our argument does not
影響する／感情 the first of these considerations. But it may かなり
修正する our 態度 に向かって the second. For we have seen that, up
to the point where 十分な 雇用 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるs, the growth of 資本／首都 depends not at all on a low propensity to 消費する
but is, on the contrary, held 支援する by it; and only in 条件s
of 十分な 雇用 is a low propensity to 消費する 役立つ to
the growth of 資本／首都. Moreover, experience 示唆するs that in
存在するing 条件s saving by 会・原則s and through 沈むing
基金s is more than 適する, and that 対策 for the
議席数是正 of incomes in a way likely to raise the propensity
to 消費する may 証明する 前向きに／確かに favourable to the growth of
資本／首都.
The 存在するing 混乱 of the public mind on the 事柄 is
井戸／弁護士席 illustrated by the very ありふれた belief that the death 義務s
are 責任がある a 削減 in the 資本／首都 wealth of the
country. Assuming that the 明言する／公表する 適用するs the proceeds of these
義務s to its ordinary 去っていく／社交的なs so that 税金s on incomes and
消費 are 対応して 減ずるd or 避けるd, it is, of
course, true that a 財政政策 of 激しい death 義務s has the
影響 of 増加するing the community's propensity to 消費する. But
inasmuch as an 増加する in the habitual propensity to 消費する
will in general (i.e. except in 条件s of 十分な 雇用)
serve to 増加する at the same time the 誘導 to invcst, the
inference 一般的に drawn is the exact opposite of the truth.
Thus our argument leads に向かって the 結論 that in
同時代の 条件s the growth of wealth, so far from 存在
扶養家族 on the abstinence of the rich, as is 一般的に supposed,
is more likely to be 妨げるd by it. One of the 長，指導者 social
justifications of 広大な／多数の／重要な 不平等 of wealth is, therefore,
除去するd. I am not 説 that there are no other 推論する／理由s,
影響を受けない by our theory, 有能な of 正当化するing some 手段 of
不平等 in some circumstances. But it does 配置する／処分する／したい気持ちにさせる of the most
important of the 推論する／理由s why hitherto we have thought it 慎重な
to move carefully. This 特に 影響する／感情s our 態度 に向かって
death 義務s: for there are 確かな justifications for 不平等
of incomes which do not 適用する 平等に to 不平等 of
相続物件s.
For my own part, I believe that there is social and
psychological justification for 重要な 不平等s of
incomes and wealth, but not for such large 不平等s as 存在する
to-day. There are 価値のある human activities which 要求する the
動機 of money-making and the 環境 of 私的な
wealth-所有権 for their 十分な fruition. Moreover, dangerous
human proclivities can be canalised into comparatively 害のない
channels by the 存在 of 適切な時期s for money-making and
私的な wealth, which, if they cannot be 満足させるd in this way,
may find their 出口 in cruelty, the 無謀な 追跡 of
personal 力／強力にする and 当局, and other forms of
self-aggrandisement. It is better that a man should tyrannise
over his bank balance than over his fellow-国民s; and whilst
the former is いつかs 公然と非難するd as 存在 but a means to the
latter, いつかs at least it is an 代案／選択肢. But it is not
necessary for the stimulation of these activities and the
satisfaction of these proclivities that the game should be played
for such high 火刑／賭けるs as at 現在の. Much lower 火刑／賭けるs will serve
the 目的 平等に 井戸／弁護士席, as soon as the players are accustomed
to them. The 仕事 of transmuting human nature must not be
混乱させるd with the 仕事 of managing it. Though in the ideal
連邦／共和国 men may have been taught or 奮起させるd or bred to take
no 利益／興味 in the 火刑／賭けるs, it may still be wise and 慎重な
statesmanship to 許す the game to be played, 支配する to 支配するs
and 制限s, so long as the 普通の／平均（する） man, or even a
重要な section of the community, is in fact 堅固に
（麻薬）常用者d to the money-making passion.
II
There is, however, a second, much more 根底となる inference
from our argument which has a 耐えるing on the 未来 of 不平等s of wealth; すなわち, our
theory of the 率 of 利益／興味. The justification for a
moderately high 率 of 利益／興味 has been 設立する hitherto in the
necessity of 供給するing a 十分な 誘導 to save. But we
have shown that the extent of 効果的な saving is やむを得ず
決定するd by the 規模 of 投資 and that the 規模 of
投資 is 促進するd by a low 率 of 利益／興味, 供給するd
that we do not 試みる／企てる to 刺激する it in this way beyond the
point which corresponds to 十分な 雇用. Thus it is to our
best advantage to 減ずる the 率 of 利益／興味 to that point
比較して to the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都
at which there is 十分な 雇用.
There can be no 疑問 that this criterion will lead to a much
lower 率 of 利益／興味 than has 支配するd hitherto; and, so far as
one can guess at the schedules of the ごくわずかの efficiency of
資本／首都 corresponding to 増加するing 量s of 資本／首都, the 率
of 利益／興味 is likely to 落ちる 刻々と, if it should be
practicable to 持続する 条件s of more or いっそう少なく continuous
十分な 雇用ｾunless, indeed, there
is an 過度の change in the aggregate propensity to 消費する
(含むing the 明言する／公表する).
I feel sure that the 需要・要求する for 資本／首都 is 厳密に 限られた／立憲的な in
the sense that it would not be difficult to 増加する the 在庫／株 of
資本／首都 up to a point where its ごくわずかの efficiency had fallen to
a very low 人物／姿／数字. This would not mean that the use of 資本／首都
器具s would cost almost nothing, but only that the return
from them would have to cover little more than their exhaustion
by wastage and obsolescence together with some 利ざや to cover
危険 and the 演習 of 技術 and judgment. In short, the
aggregate return from 持続する goods in the course of their life
would, as in the 事例／患者 of short-lived goods, just cover their
労働-costs of 生産／産物 加える an allowance for 危険 and
the costs of 技術 and 監督.
Now, though this 明言する／公表する of 事件／事情／状勢s would be やめる 両立できる
with some 手段 of individualism, yet it would mean the 安楽死 of the rentier, and,
その結果, the 安楽死 of the cumulative oppressive 力／強力にする
of the 資本主義者 to 偉業／利用する the scarcity-value of 資本／首都.
利益／興味 to-day rewards no 本物の sacrifice, any more than does
the rent of land. The owner of 資本／首都 can 得る 利益／興味
because 資本／首都 is 不十分な, just as the owner of land can 得る
rent because land is 不十分な. But whilst there may be intrinsic
推論する／理由s for the scarcity of land, there are no intrinsic 推論する／理由s
for the scarcity of 資本／首都. An intrinsic 推論する／理由 for such
scarcity, in the sense of a 本物の sacrifice which could only be
called 前へ／外へ by the 申し込む／申し出 of a reward in the 形態／調整 of 利益／興味,
would not 存在する, in the long run, except in the event of the
individual propensity to 消費する 証明するing to be of such a
character that 逮捕する saving in 条件s of 十分な 雇用 comes
to an end before 資本／首都 has become 十分に abundant. But
even so, it will still be possible for communal saving through
the 機関 of the 明言する／公表する to be 持続するd at a level which will
許す the growth of 資本／首都 up to the point where it 中止するs to be
不十分な.
I see, therefore, the rentier 面 of capitalism as a
過度期の 段階 which will disappear when it has done its
work. And with the 見えなくなる of its rentier 面 much else
in it besides will 苦しむ a sea-change. It will be, moreover, a
広大な／多数の／重要な advantage of the order of events which I am 支持するing,
that the 安楽死 of the rentier, of the functionless 投資家,
will be nothing sudden, 単に a 漸進的な but 長引かせるd
continuance of what we have seen recently in 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain, and
will need no 革命.
Thus we might 目的（とする） in practice (there 存在 nothing in this
which is unattainable) at an 増加する in the 容積／容量 of 資本／首都
until it 中止するs to be 不十分な, so that the functionless 投資家
will no longer receive a 特別手当; and at a 計画／陰謀 of direct
課税 which 許すs the 知能 and 決意 and
(n)役員／(a)執行力のある 技術 of the financier, the entrepreneur et hoc
genus omne (who are certainly so fond of their （手先の）技術 that their 労働 could be 得るd much
cheaper than at 現在の), to be harnessed to the service of the
community on reasonable 条件 of reward.
At the same time we must recognise that only experience can
show how far the ありふれた will, 具体的に表現するd in the 政策 of the
明言する／公表する, せねばならない be directed to 増加するing and 補足（する）ing the
誘導 to 投資する; and how far it is 安全な to 刺激する the
普通の／平均（する） propensity to 消費する, without foregoing our 目的（とする） of
奪うing 資本／首都 of its scarcity-value within one or two
世代s. It may turn out that the propensity to 消費する will
be so easily 強化するd by the 影響s of a 落ちるing 率 of
利益／興味, that 十分な 雇用 can be reached with a 率 of
accumulation little greater than at 現在の. In this event a
計画／陰謀 for the higher 課税 of large incomes and 相続物件s
might be open to the 反対 that it would lead to 十分な
雇用 with a 率 of accumulation which was 減ずるd
かなり below the 現在の level. I must not be supposed to
否定する the 可能性, or even the probability, of this 結果.
For in such 事柄s it is 無分別な to 予報する how the 普通の／平均（する） man
will 反応する to a changed 環境. If, however, it should 証明する
平易な to 安全な・保証する an approximation to 十分な 雇用 with a 率 of
accumulation not much greater than at 現在の, an 優れた
problem will at least have been solved. And it would remain for
separate 決定／判定勝ち（する） on what 規模 and by what means it is 権利 and
reasonable to call on the living 世代 to 制限する their
消費, so as to 設立する in course of time, a 明言する／公表する of
十分な 投資 for their 後継者s.
III
In some other 尊敬（する）・点s the foregoing theory is moderately
保守的な in its 関わりあい／含蓄s. For whilst it 示すs the
決定的な importance of 設立するing 確かな central 支配（する）／統制するs in
事柄s which are now left in the main to individual 率先, there are wide fields of
activity which are 影響を受けない. The 明言する／公表する will have to 演習 a
guiding 影響（力） on the propensity to 消費する partly through its
計画／陰謀 of 課税, partly by 直す／買収する，八百長をするing the 率 of 利益／興味, and
partly, perhaps, in other ways. その上に, it seems ありそうもない
that the 影響（力） of banking 政策 on the 率 of 利益／興味 will
be 十分な by itself to 決定する an optimum 率 of
投資. I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat 包括的な
socialisation of 投資 will 証明する the only means of 安全な・保証するing
an approximation to 十分な 雇用; though this need not 除外する
all manner of 妥協s and of 装置s by which public
当局 will co-operate with 私的な 率先. But beyond
this no obvious 事例／患者 is made out for a system of 明言する／公表する 社会主義
which would embrace most of the 経済的な life of the community.
It is not the 所有権 of the 器具s of 生産／産物 which it
is important for the 明言する／公表する to assume. If the 明言する／公表する is able to
決定する the aggregate 量 of 資源s 充てるd to augmenting
the 器具s and the basic 率 of reward to those who own
them, it will have 遂行するd all that is necessary. Moreover,
the necessary 対策 of socialisation can be introduced
徐々に and without a break in the general traditions of
society.
Our 批評 of the 受託するd classical theory of 経済的なs
has consisted not so much in finding 論理（学）の 欠陥s in its
分析 as in pointing out that its tacit 仮定／引き受けることs are seldom
or never 満足させるd, with the result that it cannot solve the
経済的な problems of the actual world. But if our central
支配（する）／統制するs 後継する in 設立するing an aggregate 容積／容量 of 生産（高）
corresponding to 十分な 雇用 as nearly as is practicable, the
classical theory comes into its own again from this point
onwards. If we suppose the 容積／容量 of 生産（高） to be given, i.e. to
be 決定するd by 軍隊s outside the classical 計画／陰謀 of thought,
then there is no 反対 to be raised against the classical
分析 of the manner in which 私的な self-利益／興味 will 決定する what in
particular is produced, in what 割合s the factors of
生産／産物 will be 連合させるd to produce it, and how the value of
the final 製品 will be 分配するd between them. Again, if we
have dealt さもなければ with the problem of thrift, there is no
反対 to be raised against the modern classical theory as to
the degree of consilience between 私的な and public advantage in
条件s of perfect and imperfect 競争 それぞれ.
Thus, apart from the necessity of central 支配（する）／統制するs to bring about
an 調整 between the propensity to 消費する and the
誘導 to 投資する, there is no more 推論する／理由 to socialise
経済的な life than there was before.
To put the point concretely, I see no 推論する／理由 to suppose that
the 存在するing system 本気で misemploys the factors of
生産／産物 which are in use. There are, of course, errors of
foresight; but these would not be 避けるd by centralising
決定／判定勝ち（する）s. When 9,000,000 men are 雇うd out of 10,000,000
willing and able to work, there is no 証拠 that the 労働 of
these 9,000,000 men is misdirected. The （民事の）告訴 against the
現在の system is not that these 9,000,000 men せねばならない be
雇うd on different 仕事s, but that 仕事s should be 利用できる
for the remaining 1,000,000 men. It is in 決定するing the 容積／容量,
not the direction, of actual 雇用 that the 存在するing system
has broken 負かす／撃墜する.
Thus I agree with Gesell that the result of filling in the
gaps in the classical theory is not to 配置する／処分する／したい気持ちにさせる of the 'Manchester
System', but to 示す the nature of the 環境 which the
解放する／自由な play of 経済的な 軍隊s 要求するs if it is to realise the
十分な potentialities of 生産／産物. The central 支配（する）／統制するs necessary
to 確実にする 十分な 雇用 will, of course, 伴う／関わる a large
拡張 of the 伝統的な 機能（する）／行事s of 政府.
その上に, the modern classical theory has itself called
attention to さまざまな 条件s in which the 解放する／自由な play of 経済的な 軍隊s may need to be 抑制（する）d or guided. But there
will still remain a wide field for the 演習 of 私的な
率先 and 責任／義務. Within this field the 伝統的な
advantages of individualism will still 持つ／拘留する good.
Let us stop for a moment to remind ourselves what these
advantages are. They are partly advantages of efficiencyｾthe advantages of decentralisation and of
the play of self-利益／興味. The advantage to efficiency of the
decentralisation of 決定／判定勝ち（する）s and of individual 責任／義務 is
even greater, perhaps, than the nineteenth century supposed; and
the reaction against the 控訴，上告 to self-利益／興味 may have gone
too far. But, above all, individualism, if it can be 粛清するd of
its defects and its 乱用s, is the best 保護（する）／緊急輸入制限 of personal
liberty in the sense that, compared with any other system, it
大いに 広げるs the field for the 演習 of personal choice. It
is also the best 保護（する）／緊急輸入制限 of the variety of life, which 現れるs
正確に from this 延長するd field of personal choice, and the
loss of which is the greatest of all the losses of the
homogeneous or 全体主義者 明言する／公表する. For this variety 保存するs the
traditions which 具体的に表現する the most 安全な・保証する and successful choices of
former 世代s; it colours the 現在の with the
diversification of its fancy; and, 存在 the handmaid of
実験 同様に as of tradition and of fancy, it is the most
powerful 器具 to better the 未来.
Whilst, therefore, the enlargement of the 機能（する）／行事s of
政府, 伴う／関わるd in the 仕事 of adjusting to one another the
propensitv to 消費する and the 誘導 to 投資する, would seem to
a nineteenth-century publicist or to a 同時代の American
financier to be a terrific encroachment on individualism, I
defend it, on the contrary, both as the only practicable means of
避けるing the 破壊 of 存在するing 経済的な forms in their
entirety and as the 条件 of the successful 機能（する）／行事ing of
individual 率先.
For if 効果的な 需要・要求する is deficient, not only is the public スキャンダル of wasted 資源s intolerable, but the
individual enterpriser who 捜し出すs to bring these 資源s into
活動／戦闘 is operating with the 半端物s 負担d against him. The game of
hazard which he plays is furnished with many 無s, so that the
players as a whole will lose if they have the energy and
hope to 取引，協定 all the cards Hitherto the increment of the world's
wealth has fallen short of the aggregate of 肯定的な individual
貯金; and the difference has been made up by the losses of
those whose courage and 率先 have not been 補足（する）d by
exceptional 技術 or unusual good fortune. But if 効果的な
需要・要求する is 適する, 普通の／平均（する） 技術 and 普通の／平均（する） good fortune will
be enough.
The 権威主義者 明言する／公表する systems of to-day seem to solve the
problem of 失業 at the expense of efficiency and of
freedom. It is 確かな that the world will not much longer
許容する the 失業 which, apart from 簡潔な／要約する intervals of
excitement, is associatedｾand, in my
opinion, 必然的に associatedｾwith
現在の-day capitalistic individualism. But it may be possible by
a 権利 分析 of the problem to cure the 病気 whilst
保存するing efficiency and freedom.
IV
I have について言及するd in passing that the new system might be more
favourable to peace than the old has been. It is 価値（がある） while to
repeat and 強調 that 面. War has several 原因（となる）s.
独裁者s and others such, to whom war 申し込む／申し出s, in 期待 at
least, a pleasurable excitement, find it 平易な to work on the
natural bellicosity of their peoples. But, over and above this,
容易にするing their 仕事 of fanning the popular 炎上, are the
経済的な 原因（となる）s of war, すなわち, the 圧力 of 全住民 and
the 競争の激しい struggle for markets. It is the second factor,
which probably played a predominant part in the nineteenth century, and might again, that
is germane to this discussion.
I have pointed out in the 先行する 一時期／支部 that, under the
system of 国内の laissez-faire and an international gold
基準 such as was 正統派の in the latter half of the
nineteenth century, there was no means open to a 政府
whereby to mitigate 経済的な 苦しめる at home except through the
競争の激しい struggle for markets. For all 対策 helpful to a
明言する／公表する of chronic or intermittent under-雇用 were 支配するd out,
except 対策 to 改善する the balance of 貿易（する） on income
account.
Thus, whilst 経済学者s were accustomed to applaud the
勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing international system as furnishing the fruits of the
international 分割 of 労働 and harmonising at the same time
the 利益／興味s of different nations, there lay 隠すd a いっそう少なく
benign 影響（力）; and those statesmen were moved by ありふれた sense
and a 訂正する 逮捕 of the true course of events, who
believed that if a rich, old country were to neglect the struggle
for markets its 繁栄 would droop and fail. But if nations
can learn to 供給する themselves with 十分な 雇用 by their
国内の 政策 (and, we must 追加する, if they can also 達成する
equilibrium in the 傾向 of their 全住民), there need be no
important 経済的な 軍隊s calculated to 始める，決める the 利益／興味 of one
country against that of its 隣人s. There would still be room
for the international 分割 of 労働 and for international
lending in appropriate 条件s. But there would no longer be a
圧力（をかける）ing 動機 why one country need 軍隊 its wares on another
or 撃退する the offerings of its 隣人, not because this was
necessary to enable it to 支払う／賃金 for what it wished to 購入（する）, but
with the 表明する 反対する of upsetting the equilibrium of 支払い（額）s
so as to develop a balance of 貿易（する） in its own favour.
International 貿易（する） would 中止する to be what it is, すなわち, a
desperate expedient to 持続する 雇用 at home by 軍隊ing
sales on foreign markets and 制限するing 購入（する）s, which, if successful, will
単に 転換 the problem of 失業 to the 隣人 which
is worsted in the struggle, but a willing and unimpeded 交流
of goods and services in 条件s of 相互の advantage.
V
Is the fulfilment of these ideas a visionary hope? Have they
insufficient roots in the 動機s which 治める／統治する the 進化 of
political society? Are the 利益／興味s which they will 妨害する
stronger and more obvious than those which they will serve?
I do not 試みる／企てる an answer in this place. It would need a
容積／容量 of a different character from this one to 示す even in
輪郭（を描く） the practical 対策 in which they might be 徐々に
着せる／賦与するd. But if the ideas are 訂正するｾan
hypothesis on which the author himself must やむを得ず base what he 令状sｾit
would be a mistake, I 予報する, to 論争 their potency over a
period of time. At the 現在の moment people are 異常に
expectant of a more 根底となる diagnosis; more 特に
ready to receive it; eager to try it out, if it should be even
plausible. But apart from this 同時代の mood, the ideas of
経済学者s and political philosophers, both when they are 権利
and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is 一般的に
understood. Indeed the world is 支配するd by little else. Practical
men, who believe themselves to be やめる 免除された from any
知識人 影響（力）s, are usually the slaves of some 消滅した／死んだ
経済学者. Madmen in 当局, who hear 発言する／表明するs in the 空気／公表する, are
distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few
years 支援する. I am sure that the 力／強力にする of vested 利益／興味s is
vastly 誇張するd compared with the 漸進的な encroachment of
ideas. Not, indeed, すぐに, but after a 確かな interval;
for in the field of 経済的な and political philosophy there are
not many who are 影響（力）d by new theories after they are twenty-five or
thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and
政治家，政治屋s and even agitators 適用する to 現在の events are not
likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not
vested 利益／興味s, which are dangerous for good or evil.