The General Theory of 雇用, 利益／興味 and Money
Print This Page
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
In the first few months に引き続いて an 爆発 of depressed 経済的な data in 1929, perhaps the 全住民 would nervously 受託する these postulates. 財務省 長官 Andrew Mellon even 主張するd that "values will be adjusted, and 企業ing people will 選ぶ up the 難破させる from いっそう少なく-competent people." But as the 不景気 深くするd by 1932, and food lines grew, such 無視（する） for the 井戸／弁護士席 存在 of 普通の／平均（する） working Americans would no longer be 許容するd. Other 経済的な systems such as 社会主義 and Marxism became attractive. 政治家，政治屋s like Hughie P. Long rose to 力／強力にする with popular スローガンs that 支持するd "株 our Wealth" and "Every Man a King."
As he watched 革命s in both Germany and Russia, John Maynard Keynes was ready for 激烈な 活動／戦闘 to 救助（する） capitalism from the stubborn 手渡すs of classical 経済学者s who 辞退するd to 介入する. He 始める，決める aside 深く，強烈に rooted beliefs that "供給（する） creates its own 需要・要求する" and 簡単に 明言する／公表するs, "the postulates of the classical theory are applicable to a special 事例／患者 only and not to the general 事例／患者." More 過激な ideas were put 今後 同様に, 含むing a bold challenge to David Ricardo and Adam Smith. Where Ricardo had once 明言する／公表するd "Like all other 契約s, 給料 should be left to the fair and 解放する／自由な 競争 of the market, and should never be controlled by the 干渉，妨害 of the 立法機関," Keynes took a more 推論する／理由d approach and replied that such hopes for a fair and balanced equilibrium in the real 行う "推定するs that 労働 itself is in a position to decide the real 行う for which it 作品, though not the 量 of 雇用 来たるべき at this 行う."
Keynes encouraged 政府 spending and short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 赤字s during 後退，不況s to 緩和する the 圧力s of a 契約ing economy. His theories 設立するd the field of "macroeconomics" and his 影響（力） is felt by every nation on earth. New 変形s in this field have since 現れるd, such as 政策 論争s over how and where the 政府 multiplier 影響 should be used, but in general his beliefs have laid a strong 創立／基礎 for a different sort of 政府 which does not see itself so far 除去するd from the daily 操作／手術s of the economy. Perhaps Keynes truly did save capitalism - the variables are too 広大な／多数の／重要な to ever know for sure - but without a 疑問 since the introduction of his theories the 商売／仕事 cycle has smoothed and 後退，不況s are いっそう少なく 厳しい. While it would be nice to say he underestimated himself and modestly assumed his 出資／貢献 to be "a 発言する／表明する in a choir", Keynes was fully aware of the 衝撃 he and his fellow 経済学者s had on the world: "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."
Steven Guess
February 16, 2003
Steven is Editor-in-長，指導者 of 基準 利益（をあげる）.com, an 経済的なs 分析 company
This 調書をとる／予約する is 主として 演説（する）／住所d to my fellow 経済学者s. I hope that it will be intelligible to others. But its main 目的 is to を取り引きする difficult questions of theory, and only in the second place with the 使用／適用s of this theory to practice. For if 正統派の 経済的なs is at fault, the error is to be 設立する not in the superstructure, which has been 築くd with 広大な／多数の／重要な care for 論理（学）の consistency, but in a 欠如（する） of clearness and of generality in the pre 行方不明になるs. Thus I cannot 達成する my 反対する of 説得するing 経済学者s to re-診察する 批判的に 確かな of their basic 仮定／引き受けることs except by a 高度に abstract argument and also by much 論争. I wish there could have been いっそう少なく of the latter. But I have thought it important, not only to explain my own point of 見解（をとる）, but also to show in what 尊敬（する）・点s it 出発／死s from the 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing theory. Those, who are 堅固に wedded to what I shall call 'the classical theory', will fluctuate, I 推定する／予想する, between a belief that I am やめる wrong and a belief that I am 説 nothing new. It is for others to 決定する if either of these or the third 代案／選択肢 is 権利. My 議論の的になる passages are 目的（とする）d at 供給するing some 構成要素 for an answer; and I must ask forgiveness If, in the 追跡 of sharp distinctions, my 論争 is itself too keen. I myself held with 有罪の判決 for many years the theories which I now attack, and I am not, I think, ignorant of their strong points.
The 事柄s at 問題／発行する are of an importance which cannot be 誇張するd. But, if my explanations are 権利, it is my fellow 経済学者s, not the general public, whom I must first 納得させる. At this 行う／開催する／段階 of the argument the general public, though welcome at the 審議, are only eavesdroppers at an 試みる／企てる by an 経済学者 to bring to an 問題／発行する the 深い 相違s of opinion between fellow 経済学者s which have for the time 存在 almost destroyed the practical 影響（力） of 経済的な theory, and will, until they are 解決するd, continue to do so.
The relation between this 調書をとる／予約する and my Treatise on Money [JMK vols. v and vi], which I published five years ago, is probably clearer to myself than it will be to others; and what in my own mind is a natural 進化 in a line of thought which I have been 追求するing for several years, may いつかs strike the reader as a 混乱させるing change of 見解（をとる）. This difficulty is not made いっそう少なく by 確かな changes in terminology which I have felt compelled to make. These changes of language I have pointed out in the course of the に引き続いて pages; but the general 関係 between the two 調書をとる／予約するs can be 表明するd 簡潔に as follows. When I began to 令状 my Treatise on Money I was still moving along the 伝統的な lines of regarding the 影響（力） of money as something so to speak separate from the general theory of 供給（する） and 需要・要求する. When I finished it, I had made some 進歩 に向かって 押し進めるing 通貨の theory 支援する to becoming a theory of 生産（高） as a whole. But my 欠如（する） of emancipation from preconceived ideas showed itself in what now seems to me to be the 優れた fault of the theoretical parts of that work (すなわち, 調書をとる／予約するs III and IV), that I failed to 取引，協定 完全に with the 影響s of changes in the level of 生産（高）. My いわゆる '根底となる equations were an instantaneous picture taken on the 仮定／引き受けること of a given 生産（高）. They 試みる／企てるd to show how, assuming the given 生産（高）, 軍隊s could develop which 伴う／関わるd a 利益（をあげる）-disequilibrium, and thus 要求するd a change in the level of 生産（高）. But the dynamic 開発, as 際立った from the instantaneous picture, was left incomplete and 極端に 混乱させるd. This 調書をとる／予約する, on the other 手渡す, has 発展させるd into what is まず第一に／本来 a 熟考する／考慮する of the 軍隊s which 決定する changes in the 規模 of 生産（高） and 雇用 as a whole; and, whilst it is 設立する that money enters into the 経済的な 計画／陰謀 in an 必須の and peculiar manner, technical 通貨の 詳細（に述べる） 落ちるs into the background. A 通貨の economy, we shall find, is essentially one in which changing 見解（をとる）s about the 未来 are 有能な of 影響（力）ing the 量 of 雇用 and not 単に its direction. But our method of analysing the 経済的な behaviour of the 現在の under the 影響（力） of changing ideas about the 未来 is one which depends on the interaction of 供給（する） and 需要・要求する, and is in this way linked up with our 根底となる theory of value. We are thus led to a more general theory, which 含むs the classical theory with which we are familiar, as a special 事例／患者.
The writer of a 調書をとる／予約する such as this, treading along unfamiliar paths, is 極端に 扶養家族 on 批評 and conversation if he is to 避ける an undue 割合 of mistakes. It is astonishing what foolish things one can 一時的に believe if one thinks too long alone, 特に in 経済的なs (along with the other moral sciences), where it is often impossible to bring one's ideas to a conclusive 実験（する） either formal or 実験の. In this 調書をとる／予約する, even more perhaps than in 令状ing my Treatise on Money, I have depended on the constant advice and 建設的な 批評 of Mr R.F. Kahn. There is a 広大な／多数の／重要な 取引，協定 in this 調書をとる／予約する which would not have taken the 形態／調整 it has except at his suggestion. I have also had much help from Mrs Joan Robinson, Mr R.G. Hawtrey and Mr R.F. Harrod, who have read the whole of the proof-sheets. The 索引 has been 収集するd by Mr D. M. Bensusan-Butt of King's College, Cambridge.
The composition of this 調書をとる／予約する has been for the author a long
struggle of escape, and so must the reading of it be for most
readers if the author's 強襲，強姦 upon them is to be successful,ｾa struggle of escape from habitual 方式s
of thought and 表現. The ideas which are here 表明するd so
laboriously are 極端に simple and should be obvious. The
difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the
old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have
been, into every corner of our minds.
J.M. KEYNES
13 December 1935
PREFACE TO THE GERMAN EDITION
Alfred Marshall, on whose 原則s of 経済的なs all 同時代の English 経済学者s have been brought up, was at particular 苦痛s to 強調 the 連続 of his thought with Ricardo's. His work 大部分は consisted in 汚職，収賄ing the ごくわずかの 原則 and the 原則 of substitution on to the Ricardian tradition; and his theory of 生産（高） and 消費 as a whole, as 際立った from his theory of the 生産／産物 and 配当 of a given 生産（高）, was never 分かれて expounded. Whether he himself felt the need of such a theory, I am not sure. But his 即座の 後継者s and 信奉者s have certainly dispensed with it and have not, 明らかに, felt the 欠如（する） of it. It was in this atmosphere that I was brought up. I taught these doctrines myself and it is only within the last １０年間 that I have been conscious of their insufficiency. In my own thought and 開発, therefore, this 調書をとる／予約する 代表するs a reaction, a 移行 away from the English classical (or 正統派の) tradition. My 強調 upon this in the に引き続いて pages and upon the points of my 相違 from received doctrine has been regarded in some ４半期/4分の1s in England as unduly 議論の的になる. But how can one brought up a カトリック教徒 in English 経済的なs, indeed a priest of that 約束, 避ける some 議論の的になる 強調, when he first becomes a Protestant?
But I fancy that all this may impress German readers somewhat 異なって. The 正統派の tradition, which 支配するd in nineteenth century England, never took so 会社／堅い a 持つ／拘留する of German thought. There have always 存在するd important schools of 経済学者s in Germany who have 堅固に 論争d the adequacy of the classical theory for the 分析 of 同時代の events. The Manchester School and Marxism both derive 最終的に from Ricardo,ｾa 結論 which is only superficially surprising. But in Germany there has always 存在するd a large section of opinion which has 固執するd neither to the one nor to the other.
It can scarcely be （人命などを）奪う，主張するd, however, that this school of thought has 築くd a 競争相手 theoretical construction; or has even 試みる／企てるd to do so. It has been 懐疑的な, 現実主義の, content with historical and empirical methods and results, which discard formal 分析. The most important unorthodox discussion on theoretical lines was that of Wicksell. His 調書をとる／予約するs were 利用できる in German (as they were not, until lately, in English); indeed one of the most important of them was written in German. But his 信奉者s were 主として Swedes and Austrians, the latter of.whom 連合させるd his ideas with 特に Austrian theory so as to bring them in 影響, 支援する again に向かって the classical tradition. Thus Germany, やめる contrary to her habit in most of the sciences, has been content for a whole century to do without any formal theory of 経済的なs which was predominant and 一般に 受託するd.
Perhaps, therefore, I may 推定する／予想する いっそう少なく 抵抗 from German, than from English, readers in 申し込む／申し出ing a theory of 雇用 and 生産（高） as a whole, which 出発／死s in important 尊敬（する）・点s from the 正統派の tradition. But can I hope to 打ち勝つ Germany's 経済的な agnosticism? Can I 説得する German 経済学者s that methods of formal 分析 have something important to 与える／捧げる to the 解釈／通訳 of 同時代の events and to the moulding of 同時代の 政策? After all, it is German to like a theory. How hungry and thirsty German 経済学者s must feel after having lived all these years without one! Certainly, it is 価値（がある） while for me to make the 試みる／企てる. And if I can 与える／捧げる some 逸脱する morsels に向かって the 準備 by German 経済学者s of a 十分な repast of theory designed to 会合，会う 特に German 条件s, I shall be content. For I 自白する that much of the に引き続いて 調書をとる／予約する is illustrated and expounded おもに with 言及／関連 to the 条件s 存在するing in the Anglo-Saxon countries.
にもかかわらず the theory of 生産（高） as a whole, which is what the に引き続いて 調書をとる／予約する 趣旨s to 供給する, is much more easily adapted to the 条件s of a 全体主義者 明言する／公表する, than is the theory of the 生産／産物 and 配当 of a given 生産（高） produced under 条件s of 解放する／自由な 競争 and a large 手段 of laissez-faire. The theory of the psychologi-cal 法律s relating 消費 and saving, the 影響（力） of 貸付金 支出 on prices and real 給料, the part played by the 率 of 利益／興味ｾthese remain as necessary 成分s in our 計画／陰謀 of thought.
I take this 適切な時期 to 認める my indebtedness to the
excellent work of my 翻訳家 Herr Waeger (I hope his
vocabulary at the end of this 容積／容量
may 証明する useful beyond its 即座の 目的) and to my
publishers, Messrs Duncker and Humblot, whose 企業, from
the days now sixteen years ago when they published my 経済的な
Consequences of the Peace, has enabled me to 持続する 接触する
with German readers.
J. M. KEYNES
7 September 1936
PREFACE TO THE JAPANESE EDITION
Alfred Marshall, on whose 原則s of 経済的なs all 同時代の English 経済学者s have been brought up, was at particular 苦痛s to 強調 the 連続 of his thought with Ricardo's. His work 大部分は consisted in 汚職，収賄ing the ごくわずかの 原則 and the 原則 of substitution on to the Ricardian tradition; and his theory of 生産（高） and 消費 as a whole, as 際立った from his theory of the 生産／産物 and 配当 of a given 生産（高）, was never 分かれて expounded. Whether he himself felt the need of such a theory, I am not sure. But his 即座の 後継者s and 信奉者s have certainly dispensed with it and have not, 明らかに, felt the 欠如（する） of it. It was in this atmosphere that I was brought up. I taught these doctrines myself and it is only within the last １０年間 that I have been conscious of their insufficiency. In my own thought and 開発, therefore, this 調書をとる／予約する 代表するs a reaction, a 移行 away from the English classical (or 正統派の) tradition. My 強調 upon this in the に引き続いて pages and upon the points of my 相違 from received doctrine has been regarded in some ４半期/4分の1s in England as unduly 議論の的になる. But how can one brought up in English 経済的な orthodoxy, indeed a priest of that 約束 at one time, 避ける some 議論の的になる 強調, when he first becomes a Protestant?
Perhaps Japanese readers, however, will neither 要求する nor
resist my 強襲，強姦s against the English tradition. We are 井戸／弁護士席
aware of the large 規模 on which English 経済的な writings are
read in Japan, but we are not so 井戸／弁護士席 知らせるd as to how Japanese
opinions regard them. The 最近の praiseworthy 企業 on the
part of the International 経済的な Circle of Tokyo in reprinting
Malthus's '原則s of Political Economy' as the first 容積／容量
in the Tokyo 一連の Reprints encourages me to think that a
調書をとる／予約する which traces its 降下／家系 from Malthus rather than Ricardo
may be received with sympathy in some ４半期/4分の1s at least.
J. M. KEYNES
4 December 1936
PREFACE TO THE FRENCH EDITION
For a hundred years or longer, English Political Economy has been 支配するd by an orthodoxy. That is not to say that an unchanging doctrine has 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるd. On the contrary. There has been a 進歩／革新的な 進化 of the doctrine. But its presuppositions, its atmosphere, its method have remained surprisingly the same, and a remarkable 連続 has been observable through all the changes. In that orthodoxy, in that continuous 移行, I was brought up. I learnt it, I taught it, I wrote it. To those looking from outside I probably still belong to it. その後の historians of doctrine will regard this 調書をとる／予約する as in essentially the same tradition. But I myself in 令状ing it, and in other 最近の work which has led up to it, have felt myself to be breaking away from this orthodoxy, to be in strong reaction against it, to be escaping from something, to be 伸び（る）ing an emancipation. And this 明言する／公表する of mind on my part is the explanation of 確かな faults in the 調書をとる／予約する, in particular its 議論の的になる 公式文書，認める in some passages, and its 空気／公表する of 存在 演説（する）／住所d too much to the 支えるもの／所有者s of a particular point of 見解（をとる） and too little 広告 urbem et orbem. I was wanting to 納得させる my own 環境 and did not 演説（する）／住所 myself with 十分な directness to outside opinion. Now three years later, having grown accustomed to my new 肌 and having almost forgotten the smell of my old one, I should, if I were 令状ing afresh, endeavour to 解放する／自由な myself from this fault and 明言する／公表する my own position in a more （疑いを）晴らす-削減（する） manner.
I say all this, partly to explain and partly to excuse, myself to French readers. For in フラン there has been no 正統派の tradition with the same 当局 over 同時代の opinion as in my own country. In the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs the position has been much the same as in England. But in フラン, as in the 残り／休憩（する） of Europe, there has been no such 支配的な school since the expiry of the school of French 自由主義の 経済学者s who were in their prime twenty years ago (though they lived to so 広大な／多数の／重要な an age, long after their 影響（力） had passed away, that it fell to my 義務, when I first became a youthful editor of the 経済的な 定期刊行物 to 令状 the obituaries of many of themｾLevasseur, Molinari, Leroy-Beaulieu). If Charles Gide had 達成するd to the same 影響（力） and 当局 as Alfred Marshall, your position would have borne more resemblance to ours. As it is, your 経済学者s are eclectic, too much (we いつかs think) without 深い roots in systematic thought. Perhaps this may make them more easily accessible to what I have to say. But it may also have the result that my readers will いつかs wonder what I am talking about when I speak, with what some of my English critics consider a misuse of language, of the 'classical' school of thought and 'classical' 経済学者s. It may, therefore, be helpful to my French readers if I 試みる／企てる to 示す very 簡潔に what I regard as the main differentiae of my approach.
I have called my theory a general theory. I mean by this that I am 主として 関心d with the behaviour of the 経済的な system as a whole,ｾwith aggregate incomes, aggregate 利益（をあげる）s, aggregate 生産（高）, aggregate 雇用, aggregate 投資, aggregate saving rather than with the incomes, 利益（をあげる）s, 生産（高）, 雇用, 投資 and saving of particular 産業s, 会社／堅いs or individuals. And I argue that important mistakes have been made through 延長するing to the system as a whole 結論s which have been 正確に arrived at in 尊敬（する）・点 of a part of it taken in 孤立／分離.
Let me give examples of what I mean. My 論争 that for the system as a whole the 量 of income which is saved, in the sense that it is not spent on 現在の 消費, is and must やむを得ず be 正確に／まさに equal to the 量 of 逮捕する new 投資 has been considered a paradox and has been the occasion of 普及した 論争. The explanation of this is undoubtedly to be 設立する in the fact that this 関係 of equality between saving and 投資, which やむを得ず 持つ／拘留するs good for the system as a whole, does not 持つ／拘留する good at all for a particular individual. There is no 推論する／理由 whatever why the new 投資 for which I am responsible should 耐える any relation whatever to the 量 of my own 貯金. Qute legitimately we regard an individual's income as 独立した・無所属 of what he himself 消費するs and 投資するs. But this, I have to point out, should not have led us to overlook the fact that the 需要・要求する arising out of the 消費 and 投資 of one individual is the source of the incomes of other individuals, so that incomes in general are not 独立した・無所属, やめる the contrary, of the disposition of individuals to spend and 投資する; and since in turn the 準備完了 of individuals to spend and 投資する depends on their incomes, a 関係 is 始める，決める up between aggregate 貯金 and aggregate 投資 which can be very easily shown, beyond any 可能性 of reasonable 論争, to be one of exact and necessary equality. Rightly regarded this is a banale 結論. But it 始める，決めるs in 動議 a train of thought from which more 相当な 事柄s follow. It is shown that, 一般に speaking, the actual level of 生産（高） and 雇用 depends, not on the capacity to produce or on the pre-存在するing level of incomes, but on the 現在の 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to produce which depend in turn on 現在の 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to 投資する and on 現在の 期待s of 現在の and 見込みのある 消費. Moreover, as soon as we know the propensity to 消費する and to save (as I call it), that is to say the result for the community as a whole of the individual psychological inclinations as to how to 配置する／処分する／したい気持ちにさせる of given incomes, we can calculate what level of incomes, and therefore what level of 生産（高） and 雇用, is in 利益（をあげる）-equilibrium with a given level of new 投資; out of which develops the doctrine of the Multiplier. Or again, it becomes evident that an 増加するd propensity to save will ceteris paribus 契約 incomes and 生産（高）; whilst an 増加するd 誘導 to 投資する will 拡大する them. We are thus able to analyse the factors which 決定する the income and 生産（高） of the system as a whole;ｾwe have, in the most exact sense, a theory of 雇用. 結論s 現れる from this 推論する／理由ing which are 特に 関連した to the problems of public 財政／金融 and public 政策 一般に and of the 貿易（する） cycle.
Another feature, 特に characteristic of this 調書をとる／予約する, is the theory of the 率 of 利益／興味. In 最近の times it has been held by many 経済学者s that the 率 of 現在の saving 決定するd the 供給（する） of 解放する／自由な 資本／首都, that the 率 of 現在の 投資 治める／統治するd the 需要・要求する for it, and that the 率 of 利益／興味 was, so to speak, the equilibrating price-factor 決定するd by the point of 交差点 of the 供給（する） curve of 貯金 and the 需要・要求する curve of 投資. But if aggregate saving is やむを得ず and in all circumstances 正確に／まさに equal to aggregate 投資, it is evident that this explanation 崩壊（する）s. We have to search どこかよそで for the 解答. I find it in the idea that it is the 機能（する）／行事 of the 率 of 利益／興味 to 保存する equilibrium, not between the 需要・要求する and the 供給（する） of new 資本／首都 goods, but between the 需要・要求する and the 供給（する） of money, that is to say between the 需要・要求する for liquidity and the means of 満足させるing this 需要・要求する. I am here returning to the doctrine of the older, pre-nineteenth century 経済学者s. Montesquieu, for example, saw this truth with かなりの clarity,ｾMontesquieu who was the real French 同等（の） of Adam Smith, the greatest of your 経済学者s, 長，率いる and shoulders above the physiocrats in 侵入／浸透, （疑いを）晴らす-headedness and good sense (which are the 質s an 経済学者 should have). But I must leave it to the text of this 調書をとる／予約する to show how in 詳細（に述べる） all this 作品 out.
I have called this 調書をとる／予約する the General Theory of 雇用, 利益／興味 and Money; and the third feature to which I may call attention is the 治療 of money and prices. The に引き続いて 分析 登録（する）s my final escape from the 混乱s of the 量 Theory, which once entangled me. I regard the price level as a whole as 存在 決定するd in 正確に the same way as individual prices; that is to say, under the 影響（力） of 供給（する） and 需要・要求する. Technical 条件s, the level of 給料, the extent of 未使用の capacity of 工場／植物 and 労働, and the 明言する／公表する of markets and 競争 決定する the 供給（する） 条件s of individual 製品s and of 製品s as a whole. The 決定／判定勝ち（する）s of entrepreneurs, which 供給する the incomes of individual 生産者s and the 決定／判定勝ち（する）s of those individuals as to the disposition of such incomes 決定する the 需要・要求する 条件s. And pricesｾboth individual prices and the price-levelｾ現れる as the resultant of these two factors. Money, and the 量 of money, are not direct 影響（力）s at this 行う／開催する／段階 of the 訴訟／進行s. They have done their work at an earlier 行う／開催する／段階 of the 分析. The 量 of money 決定するs the 供給（する） of liquid 資源s, and hence the 率 of 利益／興味, and in 合同 with other factors (特に that of 信用／信任) the 誘導 to 投資する, which in turn 直す／買収する，八百長をするs the equilibrium level of incomes, 生産（高） and 雇用 and (at each 行う／開催する／段階 in 合同 with other factors) the price-level as a whole through the 影響（力）s of 供給（する） and 需要・要求する thus 設立するd.
I believe that 経済的なs everywhere up to 最近の times has
been 支配するd, much more than has been understood, by the
doctrines associated with the 指名する of J.-B. Say. It is true that
his '法律 of markets' has been long abandoned by most 経済学者s;
but they have not extricated themselves from his basic
仮定／引き受けることs and 特に from his fallacy that 需要・要求する is
created by 供給（する）. Say was 暗黙に assuming that the 経済的な
system was always operating up to its 十分な capacity, so that a
new activity was always in substitution for, and never in
新規加入 to, some other activity. Nearly all その後の 経済的な
theory has depended on, in the sense that it has 要求するd, this
same 仮定／引き受けること. Yet a theory so based is 明確に incompetent to
取り組む the problems of 失業 and of the 貿易（する） cycle.
Perhaps I can best 表明する to French readers what I （人命などを）奪う，主張する for
this 調書をとる／予約する by 説 that in the theory of 生産／産物 it is a
final break-away from the doctrines of J.-B. Say and that in the
theory of 利益／興味 it is a return to the doctrines of
Montesquieu.
J. M. KEYNES
20 February 1939
King's College
Cambridge
一時期／支部 1
I have called this 調書をとる／予約する the General Theory of 雇用,
利益／興味 and Money, placing the 強調 on the prefix general.
The 反対する of such a 肩書を与える is to contrast the character of my
arguments and 結論s with those of the classical
theory of the 支配する, upon which I was brought up and which
支配するs the 経済的な thought, both practical and theoretical,
of the 治める／統治するing and academic classes of this 世代, as it
has for a hundred years past. I shall argue that the postulates
of the classical theory are applicable to a special 事例／患者 only and
not to the general 事例／患者, the 状況／情勢 which it assumes 存在 a
限界ing point of the possible positions of equilibrium.
Moreover, the 特徴 of the special 事例／患者 assumed by the
classical theory happen not to be those of the 経済的な society
in which we 現実に live, with the result that its teaching is
誤って導くing and 悲惨な if we 試みる／企てる to 適用する it to the facts
of experience.
一時期／支部 2
Most treatises on the theory of value and 生産／産物 are まず第一に／本来 関心d with the 配当 of a given 容積／容量 of 雇うd 資源s between different uses and with the 条件s which, assuming the 雇用 of this 量 of 資源s, 決定する their 親族 rewards and the 親族 values of their 製品s.
The question, also, of the 容積／容量 of the 利用できる 資源s,
in the sense of the size of the employable 全住民, the extent
of natural wealth and the 蓄積するd 資本／首都 器具／備品, has
often been 扱う／治療するd descriptively. But the pure theory of what
決定するs the actual 雇用 of the 利用できる
資源s has seldom been 診察するd in 広大な／多数の／重要な 詳細（に述べる）. To say that
it has not been 診察するd at all would, of course, be absurd. For
every discussion 関心ing fluctuations of 雇用, of which
there have been many, has been 関心d with it. I mean, not
that the topic has been overlooked, but that the 根底となる
theory underlying it has been みなすd so simple and obvious that it
has received, at the most, a 明らかにする について言及する.
The classical theory of 雇用ｾ恐らく
simple and obviousｾhas been based, I
think, on two 根底となる postulates, though 事実上 without
discussion, すなわち:
I. The 行う is equal to the ごくわずかの 製品 of 労働
That is to say, the 行う of an 雇うd person is equal to the
value which would be lost if 雇用 were to be 減ずるd by one
部隊 (after deducting any other costs which this 削減 of
生産（高） would 避ける); 支配する, however, to the 資格 that
the equality may be 乱すd, in 一致 with 確かな
原則s, if 競争 and markets are imperfect.
II. The 公共事業（料金）／有用性 of the 行う when a given 容積／容量 of 労働 is 雇うd is equal to the ごくわずかの disutility of that 量 of 雇用.
That is to say, the real 行う of an 雇うd person is that which is just 十分な (in the estimation of the 雇うd persons themselves) to induce the 容積／容量 of 労働 現実に 雇うd to be 来たるべき; 支配する to the 資格 that the equality for each individual 部隊 of 労働 may be 乱すd by combination between employable 部隊s analogous to the imperfections of 競争 which qualify the first postulate. Disutility must be here understood to cover every 肉親，親類d of 推論する／理由 which might lead a man, or a 団体／死体 of men, to 保留する their 労働 rather than 受託する a 行う which had to them a 公共事業（料金）／有用性 below a 確かな 最小限.
This postulate is 両立できる with what may be called 'frictional' 失業. For a 現実主義の 解釈／通訳 of it legitimately 許すs for さまざまな inexactnesses of 調整 which stand in the way of continuous 十分な 雇用: for example, 失業 予定 to a 一時的な want of balance between the 親族 量s of specialised 資源s as a result of miscalculation or intermittent 需要・要求する; or to time-lags consequent on unforeseen changes; or to the fact that the change-over from one 雇用 to another cannot be 影響d without a 確かな 延期する, so that there will always 存在する in a 非，不，無-static society a 割合 of 資源s 失業した 'between 職業s'. In 新規加入 to 'frictional' 失業, the postulate is also 両立できる with 'voluntary' 失業 予定 to the 拒絶 or 無（不）能 of a 部隊 of 労働, as a result of 法律制定 or social practices or of combination for 集団の／共同の 取引ing or of slow 返答 to change or of mere human obstinacy, to 受託する a reward corresponding to the value of the 製品 attributable to its ごくわずかの 生産性. But these two 部類s of 'frictional' 失業 and 'voluntary' 失業 are 包括的な. The classical postulates do not 収容する／認める of the 可能性 of the third 部類, which I shall define below as 'involuntary' 失業.
支配する to these 資格s, the 容積／容量 of 雇うd 資源s is duly 決定するd, によれば the classical theory, by the two postulates. The first gives us the 需要・要求する schedule for 雇用, the second gives us the 供給（する） schedule; and the 量 of 雇用 is 直す／買収する，八百長をするd at the point where the 公共事業（料金）／有用性 of the ごくわずかの 製品 balances the disutility of the ごくわずかの 雇用. It would follow from this that there are only four possible means of 増加するing 雇用:
(a) An 改良 in organisation or in foresight which 減らすs 'frictional' 失業;
(b) a 減少（する） in the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働, as 表明するd by the real 行う for which 付加 労働 is 利用できる, so as to 減らす 'voluntary' 失業;
(c) an 増加する in the ごくわずかの physical 生産性 of 労働 in the 行う-goods 産業s (to use Professor Pigou's convenient 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 for goods upon the price of which the 公共事業（料金）／有用性 of the money-行う depends);
or (d) an 増加する in the price of 非，不，無-行う-goods compared with the price of 行う-goods, associated with a 転換 in the 支出 of 非，不，無-行う-earners from 行う-goods to 非，不，無-行う-goods.
This, to the best of my understanding, is the 実体 of
Professor Pigou's Theory of 失業ｾthe only 詳細（に述べる）d account of the classical
theory of 雇用 which 存在するs.
II
Is it true that the above 部類s are 包括的な in 見解（をとる） of the fact that the 全住民 一般に is seldom doing as much work as it would like to do on the basis of the 現在の 行う? For, admittedly, more 労働 would, as a 支配する, be 来たるべき at the 存在するing money-行う if it were 需要・要求するd. The classical school reconcile this 現象 with their second postulate by arguing that, while the 需要・要求する for 労働 at the 存在するing money-行う may be 満足させるd before everyone willing to work at this 行う is 雇うd, this 状況／情勢 is 予定 to an open or tacit 協定 amongst 労働者s not to work for いっそう少なく, and that if 労働 as a whole would agree to a 削減 of money-給料 more 雇用 would be 来たるべき. If this is the 事例／患者, such 失業, though 明らかに involuntary, is not 厳密に so, and せねばならない be 含むd under the above 部類 of 'voluntary' 失業 予定 to the 影響s of 集団の／共同の 取引ing, etc.
This calls for two 観察s, the first of which relates to the actual 態度 of 労働者s に向かって real 給料 and money-給料 それぞれ and is not theoretically 根底となる, but the second of which is 根底となる.
Let us assume, for the moment, that 労働 is not 用意が出来ている to work for a lower money-行う and that a 削減 in the 存在するing level of money-給料 would lead, through strikes or さもなければ, to a 撤退 from the 労働 market of 労働 which is now 雇うd. Does it follow from this that the 存在するing level of real 給料 正確に 対策 the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働? Not やむを得ず. For, although a 削減 in the 存在するing money-行う would lead to a 撤退 of 労働, it does not follow that a 落ちる in the value of the 存在するing money-行う in 条件 of 行う-goods would do so, if it were 予定 to a rise in the price of the latter. In other words, it may be the 事例／患者 that within a 確かな 範囲 the 需要・要求する of 労働 is for a 最小限 money-行う and not for a 最小限 real 行う. The classical school have tacitly assumed that this would 伴う／関わる no 重要な change in their theory. But this is not so. For if the 供給（する） of 労働 is not a 機能（する）／行事 of real 給料 as its 単独の variable, their argument breaks 負かす／撃墜する 完全に and leaves the question of what the actual 雇用 will be やめる indeterminate. They do not seem to have realised that, unless the 供給（する） of 労働 is a 機能（する）／行事 of real 給料 alone, their 供給（する） curve for 労働 will 転換 bodily with every movement of prices. Thus their method is tied up with their very special 仮定／引き受けることs, and cannot be adapted to を取り引きする the more general 事例／患者.
Now ordinary experience tells us, beyond 疑問, that a 状況／情勢 where 労働 規定するs (within 限界s) for a money-行う rather than a real 行う, so far from 存在 a mere 可能性, is the normal 事例／患者. Whilst 労働者s will usually resist a 削減 of money-給料, it is not their practice to 身を引く their 労働 whenever there is a rise in the price of 行う-goods. It is いつかs said that it would be illogical for 労働 to resist a 削減 of money-給料 but not to resist a 削減 of real 給料. For 推論する／理由s given below (p. 14), this might not be so illogical as it appears at first; and, as we shall see later, fortunately so. But, whether 論理（学）の or illogical, experience shows that this is how 労働 in fact behaves.
Moreover, the 論争 that the 失業 which characterises a 不景気 is 予定 to a 拒絶 by 労働 to 受託する a 削減 of money-給料 is not 明確に supported by the facts. It is not very plausible to 主張する that 失業 in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs in 1932 was 予定 either to 労働 obstinately 辞退するing to 受託する a 削減 of money-給料 or to its obstinately 需要・要求するing a real 行う beyond what the 生産性 of the 経済的な machine was 有能な of furnishing. Wide variations are experienced in the 容積／容量 of 雇用 without any 明らかな change either in the 最小限 real 需要・要求するs of 労働 or in its 生産性. 労働 is not more truculent in the 不景気 than in the にわか景気ｾfar from it. Nor is its physical 生産性 いっそう少なく. These facts from experience are a prima facie ground for 尋問 the adequacy of the classical 分析.
It would be 利益／興味ing to see the results of a 統計に基づく enquiry into the actual 関係 between changes in money-給料 and changes in real 給料. In the 事例／患者 of a change peculiar to a particular 産業 one would 推定する／予想する the change in real 給料 to be in the same direction as the change in money-給料. But in the 事例／患者 of changes in the general level of 給料, it will be 設立する, I think, that the change in real 給料 associated with a change in money-給料, so far from 存在 usually in the same direction, is almost always in the opposite direction. When money-給料 are rising, that is to say, it will be 設立する that real 給料 are 落ちるing; and when money-給料 are 落ちるing, real 給料 are rising. This is because, in the short period, 落ちるing money-給料 and rising real 給料 are each, for 独立した・無所属 推論する／理由s, likely to …を伴って 減少（する）ing 雇用; 労働 存在 readier to 受託する 行う-削減（する）s when 雇用 is 落ちるing off, yet real 給料 必然的に rising in the same circumstances on account of the 増加するing ごくわずかの return to a given 資本／首都 器具／備品 when 生産（高） is 減らすd.
If, indeed, it were true that the 存在するing real 行う is a 最小限 below which more 労働 than is now 雇うd will not be 来たるべき in any circumstances, involuntary 失業, apart from frictional 失業, would be 非，不，無-existent. But to suppose that this is invariably the 事例／患者 would be absurd. For more 労働 than is at 現在の 雇うd is usually 利用できる at the 存在するing money-行う, even though the price of 行う-goods is rising and, その結果, the real 行う 落ちるing. If this is true, the 行う-goods 同等（の） of the 存在するing money-行う is not an 正確な 指示，表示する物 of the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働, and the second postulate does not 持つ／拘留する good.
But there is a more 根底となる 反対. The second postulate flows from the idea that the real 給料 of 労働 depend on the 行う 取引s which 労働 makes with the entrepreneurs. It is 認める, of course, that the 取引s are 現実に made ーに関して／ーの点でs of money, and even that the real 給料 許容できる to 労働 are not altogether 独立した・無所属 of what the corresponding money-行う happens to be. にもかかわらず it is the money-行う thus arrived at which is held to 決定する the real 行う. Thus the classical theory assumes that it is always open to 労働 to 減ずる its real 行う by 受託するing a 削減 in its money-行う. The postulate that there is a 傾向 for the real 行う to come to equality with the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働 明確に 推定するs that 労働 itself is in a position to decide the real 行う for which it 作品, though not the 量 of 雇用 来たるべき at this 行う.
The 伝統的な theory 持続するs, in short, that the 行う 取引s between the entrepreneurs and the 労働者s 決定する the real 行う; so that, assuming 解放する／自由な 競争 amongst 雇用者s and no 制限する combination amongst 労働者s, the latter can, if they wish, bring their real 給料 into 順応／服従 with the ごくわずかの disutility of the 量 of 雇用 申し込む／申し出d by the 雇用者s at that 行う. If this is not true, then there is no longer any 推論する／理由 to 推定する／予想する a 傾向 に向かって equality between the real 行う and the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働.
The classical 結論s are ーするつもりであるd, it must be remembered, to 適用する to the whole 団体／死体 of 労働 and do not mean 単に that a 選び出す／独身 individual can get 雇用 by 受託するing a 削減（する） in money-給料 which his fellows 辞退する. They are supposed to be 平等に applicable to a の近くにd system as to an open system, and are not 扶養家族 on the 特徴 of an open system or on the 影響s of a 削減 of money-給料 in a 選び出す／独身 country on its foreign 貿易（する）, which 嘘（をつく）, of course, 完全に outside the field of this discussion. Nor are they based on indirect 影響s 予定 to a lower 給料-法案 ーに関して／ーの点でs of money having 確かな reactions on the banking system and the 明言する／公表する of credit, 影響s which we shall 診察する in 詳細（に述べる） in 一時期／支部 19. They are based on the belief that in a の近くにd system a 削減 in the general level of money-給料 will be …を伴ってd, at any 率 in the short period and 支配する only to minor 資格s, by some, though not always a proportionate, 削減 in real 給料.
Now the 仮定／引き受けること that the general level of real 給料 depends on the money-行う 取引s between the 雇用者s and the 労働者s is not 明白に true. Indeed it is strange that so little 試みる／企てる should have been made to 証明する or to 反駁する it. For it is far from 存在 一貫した with the general tenor of the classical theory, which has taught us to believe that prices are 治める／統治するd by ごくわずかの prime cost ーに関して／ーの点でs of money and that money-給料 大部分は 治める／統治する ごくわずかの prime cost. Thus if money-給料 change, one would have 推定する／予想するd the classical school to argue that prices would change in almost the same 割合, leaving the real 行う and the level of 失業 事実上 the same as before, any small 伸び（る） or loss to 労働 存在 at the expense or 利益（をあげる） of other elements of ごくわずかの cost which have been left unaltered. They seem, however, to have been コースを変えるd from this line of thought, partly by the settled 有罪の判決 that 労働 is in a position to 決定する its own real 行う and partly, perhaps, by 最大の関心事 with the idea that prices depend on the 量 of money. And the belief in the proposition that 労働 is always in a position to 決定する its own real 行う, once 可決する・採択するd, has been ina~ntained by its 存在 混乱させるd with the proposition that 労働 is always in a position to 決定する what real 行う shall correspond to 十分な 雇用, i.e. the 最大限 量 of 雇用 which is 両立できる with a given real 行う.
To sum up: there are two 反対s to the second postulate of the classical theory. The first relates to the actual behaviour of 労働. A 落ちる in real 給料 予定 to a rise in prices, with money-給料 unaltered, does not, as a 支配する, 原因（となる） the 供給（する） of 利用できる 労働 on 申し込む／申し出 at the 現在の 行う to 落ちる below the 量 現実に 雇うd 事前の to the rise of prices. To sthat it does is to suppose that all those who are now 失業した though willing to work at the 現在の 行う will 身を引く the 申し込む／申し出 of their 労働 in the event of even a small rise in the cost of living. Yet this strange supposition 明らかに underlies Professor Pigou's Theory of 失業, and it is what all members of the 正統派の school are tacitly assuming.
But the other, more 根底となる, 反対, which we shall
develop in the 続いて起こるing 一時期／支部s, flows from our 論争ing the
仮定／引き受けること that the general level of real 給料 is 直接／まっすぐに
決定するd by the character of the 行う 取引. In assuming that
the 行う 取引 決定するs the real 行う the classical school
have slipt in an illicit 仮定／引き受けること. For there may be no method
利用できる to 労働 as a whole whereby it can bring the
行う-goods 同等（の） of the general level of money 給料 into
順応／服従 with the ごくわずかの disutility of the 現在の 容積／容量 of
雇用. There may 存在する no expedient by which 労働 as a
whole can 減ずる its real 行う to a given 人物／姿／数字 by making
改訂するd money 取引s with the entrepreneurs. This will be our
論争. We shall endeavour to show that まず第一に／本来 it is
確かな other 軍隊s which 決定する the general level of real
給料. The 試みる／企てる to elucidate this problem will be one of our
main 主題s. We shall argue that there has been a 根底となる
誤解 of how in this 尊敬（する）・点 the economy in which we
live 現実に 作品.
III
Though the struggle over money-給料 between individuals and groups is often believed to 決定する the general level of real-給料, it is, in fact, 関心d with a different 反対する. Since there is imperfect mobility of 労働, and 給料 do not tend to an exact equality of 逮捕する advantage in different 占領／職業s, any individual or group of individuals, who 同意 to a 削減 of money-給料 比較して to others, will 苦しむ a 親族 削減 in real 給料, which is a 十分な justification for them to resist it. On the other 手渡す it would be impracticable to resist every 削減 of real 給料, 予定 to a change in the 購入（する）ing-力／強力にする of money which 影響する／感情s all 労働者s alike; and in fact 削減s of real 給料 arising in this way are not, as a 支配する, resisted unless they proceed to an extreme degree. Moreover, a 抵抗 to 削減s in money-給料 適用するing to particular 産業s does not raise the same insuperable 妨げる／法廷，弁護士業 to an 増加する in aggregate 雇用 which would result from a 類似の 抵抗 to every 削減 in real 給料.
In other words, the struggle about money-給料 まず第一に／本来 影響する／感情s the 配当 of the aggregate real 行う between different 労働-groups, and not its 普通の／平均（する） 量 per 部隊 of 雇用, which depends, as we shall see, on a different 始める，決める of 軍隊s. The 影響 of combination on the part of a group of 労働者s is to 保護する their 親族 real 行う. The general level of real 給料 depends on the other 軍隊s of the 経済的な system.
Thus it is fortunate that the 労働者s, though unconsciously,
are instinctively more reasonable 経済学者s than the classical
school, inasmuch as they resist 削減s of money-給料, which
are seldom or never of an all-一連の会議、交渉／完成する character, even though the
存在するing real 同等（の） of these 給料 越えるs the ごくわずかの
disutility of the 存在するing 雇用; 反して they do not resist
削減s of real 給料, which are associated with 増加するs in
aggregate 雇用 and leave 親族 money-給料 不変の,
unless the 削減 proceeds so far as to 脅す a 削減
of the real 行う below the ごくわずかの disutility of the 存在するing 容積／容量 of
雇用. Every 貿易（する） union will put up some 抵抗 to a
削減（する） in money-給料, however small. But since no 貿易（する） union would
dream of striking on every occasion of a rise in the cost of
living, they do not raise the 障害 to any 増加する in
aggregate 雇用 which is せいにするd to them by the classical
school.
IV
We must now define the third 部類 of 失業, すなわち 'involuntary' 失業 in the strict sense, the 可能性 of which the classical theory does not 収容する／認める.
明確に we do not mean by 'involuntary' 失業 the mere 存在 of an unexhausted capacity to work. An eight-hour day does not 構成する 失業 because it is not beyond human capacity to work ten hours. Nor should we regard as 'involuntary' 失業 the 撤退 of their 労働 by a 団体／死体 of 労働者s because they do not choose to work for いっそう少なく than a 確かな real reward. その上に, it will be convenient to 除外する 'frictional' 失業 from our 鮮明度／定義 of 'involuntary' 失業. My 鮮明度／定義 is, therefore, as follows: Men are involuntarily 失業した If, in the event of a small rise in the price of 行う-goods 比較して to the money-行う, both the aggregate 供給（する） of 労働 willing to work for the 現在の money-行う and the aggregate 需要・要求する for it at that 行う would be greater than the 存在するing 容積／容量 of 雇用. An 代案／選択肢 鮮明度／定義, which 量s, however, to the same thing, will be given in the next 一時期／支部 (一時期／支部 3).
It follows from this 鮮明度／定義 that the equality of the real 行う to the ごくわずかの disutility of 雇用 presupposed by the second postulate, realistically 解釈する／通訳するd, corresponds to the absence of 'involuntary' 失業. This 明言する／公表する of 事件／事情／状勢s we shall 述べる as '十分な' 雇用, both 'frictional' and 'voluntary' 失業 存在 一貫した with '十分な' 雇用 thus defined. This fits in, we shall find, with other 特徴 of the classical theory, which is best regarded as a theory of 配当 in 条件s of 十分な 雇用. So long as the classical postulates 持つ／拘留する good, 失業, which is in the above sense involuntary, cannot occur. 明らかな 失業 must, therefore, be the result either of 一時的な loss of work of the 'between 職業s' type or of intermittent 需要・要求する for 高度に specialised 資源s or of the 影響 of a 貿易（する） union 'の近くにd shop' on the 雇用 of 解放する／自由な 労働. Thus writers in the classical tradition, overlooking the special 仮定／引き受けること underlying their theory, have been driven 必然的に to the 結論, perfectly 論理（学）の on their 仮定／引き受けること, that 明らかな 失業 (apart from the 認める exceptions) must be 予定 at 底（に届く） to a 拒絶 by the 失業した factors to 受託する a reward which corresponds to their ごくわずかの 生産性. A classical 経済学者 may sympathise with 労働 in 辞退するing to 受託する a 削減（する） in its money-行う, and he will 収容する／認める that it may not be wise to make it to 会合，会う 条件s which are 一時的な; but 科学の 正直さ 軍隊s him to 宣言する that this 拒絶 is, にもかかわらず, at the 底（に届く） of the trouble.
明白に, however, if the classical theory is only applicable
to the 事例／患者 of 十分な 雇用, it is fallacious to 適用する it to
the problems of involuntary 失業ｾif
there be such a thing (and who will 否定する it?). The classical
理論家s 似ている Euclidean geometers in a 非，不，無-Euclidean world
who, discovering that in experience straight lines 明らかに
平行の often 会合，会う, rebuke the lines for not keeping straightｾas the only 治療（薬） for the unfortunate
衝突／不一致s which are occurring. Yet, in truth, there is no 治療（薬）
except to throw over the axiom of 平行のs and to work out a
非，不，無-Euclidean geometry. Something 類似の is 要求するd to-day in
経済的なs. We need to throw over the second postulate of the classical doctrine and to work out
the behaviour of a system in which involuntary 失業 in
the strict sense is possible.
V
In 強調ing our point of 出発 from the classical system, we must not overlook an important point of 協定. For we shall 持続する the first postulate as heretofore, 支配する only to the same 資格s as in the classical theory; and we must pause, for a moment, to consider what this 伴う／関わるs.
It means that, with a given organisation, 器具／備品 and technique, real 給料 and the 容積／容量 of 生産（高） (and hence of 雇用) are uniquely correlated, so that, in general, an 増加する in 雇用 can only occur to the accompaniment of a 拒絶する／低下する in the 率 of real 給料. Thus I am not 論争ing this 決定的な fact which the classical 経済学者s have (rightly) 主張するd as indefeasible. In a given 明言する／公表する of organisation, 器具／備品 and technique, the real 行う earned by a 部隊 of 労働 has a unique (inverse) correlation with the 容積／容量 of 雇用. Thus if 雇用 増加するs, then, in the short period, the reward per 部隊 of 労働 ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-goods must, in general, 拒絶する／低下する and 利益（をあげる）s 増加する. This is 簡単に the obverse of the familiar proposition that 産業 is 普通は working 支配する to 減少（する）ing returns in the short period during which 器具／備品 etc. is assumed to be constant; so that the ごくわずかの 製品 in the 行う-good 産業s (which 治める／統治するs real 給料) やむを得ず 減らすs as 雇用 is 増加するd. So long, indeed, as this proposition 持つ／拘留するs, any means of 増加するing 雇用 must lead at the same time to a diminution of the ごくわずかの 製品 and hence of the 率 of 給料 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of this 製品.
But when we have thrown over the second postulate, a 拒絶する／低下する
in 雇用, although やむを得ず associated with 労働's
receiving a 行う equal in value to a larger 量 of
行う-goods, is not やむを得ず 予定 to 労働's 需要・要求するing a larger
量 of 行う-goods; and a 乗り気 on the part of 労働
to 受託する lower money-給料 is not やむを得ず a 治療（薬） for
失業. The theory of 給料 in relation to 雇用, to
which we are here 主要な up, cannot be fully elucidated,
however, until 一時期／支部 19 and its 虫垂 have been reached.
VI
From the time of Say and Ricardo the classical 経済学者s have taught that 供給（する） creates its own 需要・要求する;ｾmeaning by this in some 重要な, but not 明確に defined, sense that the whole of the costs of 生産／産物 must やむを得ず be spent in the aggregate, 直接／まっすぐに or 間接に, on 購入（する）ing the 製品.
In J.S. Mill's 原則s of Political Economy the
doctrine is expressly 始める，決める 前へ／外へ:
What 構成するs the means of 支払い（額） for 商品／必需品s is 簡単に 商品／必需品s. Each person's means of 支払う／賃金ing for the 生産／産物s of other people consist of those which he himself 所有するs. All 販売人s are 必然的に, and by the meaning of the word, 買い手s. Could we suddenly 二塁打 the 生産力のある 力／強力にするs of the country, we should 二塁打 the 供給（する） of 商品／必需品s in every market; but we should, by the same 一打／打撃, 二塁打 the 購入（する）ing 力／強力にする. Everybody would bring a 二塁打 需要・要求する 同様に as 供給（する）; everybody would be able to buy twice as much, because every one would have twice as much to 申し込む／申し出 in 交流.
As a corollary of the same doctrine, it has been supposed that
any individual 行為／法令／行動する of 棄権するing from 消費 やむを得ず
leads to, and 量s to the same thing as, 原因（となる）ing the 労働
and 商品／必需品s thus 解放（する）d from 供給（する）ing 消費 to be
投資するd in the 生産／産物 of 資本／首都 wealth. The に引き続いて
passage from Marshall's Pure Theory of 国内の Values
illustrates the 伝統的な approach:
The whole of a man's income is expended in the 購入（する） of services and of 商品／必需品s. It is indeed 一般的に said that a man spends some 部分 of his income and saves another. But it is a familiar 経済的な axiom that a man 購入（する）s 労働 and 商品／必需品s with that 部分 of his income which he saves just as much as he does with that he is said to spend. He is said to spend when he 捜し出すs to 得る 現在の enjoyment from the services and 商品／必需品s which he 購入（する）s. He is said to save when he 原因（となる）s the 労働 and the 商品／必需品s which he 購入（する）s to be 充てるd to the 生産／産物 of wealth from which he 推定する／予想するs to derive the means of enjoyment in the 未来.
It is true that it would not be 平易な to 引用する 類似の passages from Marshall's later work or from Edgeworth or Professor Pigou. The doctrine is never 明言する／公表するd to-day in this 天然のまま form. にもかかわらず it still underlies the whole classical theory, which would 崩壊（する） without it. 同時代の 経済学者s, who might hesitate to agree with Mill, do not hesitate to 受託する 結論s which 要求する Mill's doctrine as their premiss. The 有罪の判決, which runs, for example, through almost all Professor Pigou's work, that money makes no real difference except frictionally and that the theory of 生産／産物 and 雇用 can be worked out (like Mill's) as 存在 based on 'real' 交流s with money introduced perfunctorily in a later 一時期／支部, is the modern 見解／翻訳／版 of the classical tradition. 同時代の thought is still 深く，強烈に 法外なd in the notion that if people do not spend their money in one way they will spend it in another. 戦後の 経済学者s seldom, indeed, 後継する in 持続するing this 見地 終始一貫して; for their thought to-day is too much permeated with the contrary 傾向 and with facts of experience too 明白に inconsistent with their former 見解（をとる）. But they have not drawn 十分に far-reaching consequences; and have not 改訂するd their 根底となる theory.
In the first instance, these 結論s may have been 適用するd to the 肉親，親類d of economy in which we 現実に live by 誤った analogy from some 肉親，親類d of 非，不，無-交流 Robinson Crusoe economy, in which the income which individuals 消費する or 保持する as a result of their 生産力のある activity is, 現実に and 排他的に, the 生産（高） in specie of that activity. But, apart from this, the 結論 that the costs of 生産（高） are always covered in the aggregate by the sale-proceeds resulting from 需要・要求する, has 広大な／多数の／重要な plausibility, because it is difficult to distinguish it from another, 類似の-looking proposition which is indubitable, すなわち that the income derived in the aggregate by all the elements in the community 関心d in a 生産力のある activity やむを得ず has a value 正確に／まさに equal to the value of the 生産（高）.
類似して it is natural to suppose that the 行為／法令／行動する of an individual, by which he 濃厚にするs himself without 明らかに taking anything from anyone else, must also 濃厚にする the community as a whole; so that (as in the passage just 引用するd from Marshall) an 行為／法令／行動する of individual saving 必然的に leads to a 平行の 行為／法令／行動する of 投資. For, once more, it is indubitable that the sum of the 逮捕する increments of the wealth of individuals must be 正確に／まさに equal to the aggregate 逮捕する increment of the wealth of the community.
Those who think in this way are deceived, にもかかわらず, by an 光学の illusion, which makes two essentially different activities appear to be the same. They are fallaciously supposing that there is a nexus which 部隊s 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to 棄権する from 現在の 消費 with 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to 供給する for 未来 消費; 反して the 動機s which 決定する the latter are not linked in any simple way with the 動機s which 決定する the former.
It is, then, the 仮定／引き受けること of equality between the 需要・要求する
price of 生産（高） as a whole and its 供給（する） price which is to be
regarded as the classical theory's 'axiom of 平行のs'. 認めるd
this, all the 残り／休憩（する） followsｾthe social
advantages of 私的な and 国家の thrift, the 伝統的な
態度 に向かって the 率 of 利益／興味, the classical theory of
失業, the 量 theory of money, the unqualified
advantages of laissez-faire in 尊敬（する）・点 of foreign 貿易（する）
and much else which we shall have to question.
VII
At different points in this 一時期／支部 we have made the classical theory to depend in succession on the 仮定／引き受けることs:
(1) that the real 行う is equal to the ごくわずかの disutility of the 存在するing 雇用;
(2) that there is no such thing as involuntary 失業 in the strict sense;
(3) that 供給（する） creates its own 需要・要求する in the sense that the aggregate 需要・要求する price is equal to the aggregate 供給（する） price for all levels of 生産（高） and 雇用.
These three 仮定／引き受けることs, however, all 量 to the same thing
in the sense that they all stand and 落ちる together, any one of
them 論理（学）上 伴う／関わるing the other two.
一時期／支部 3
I
We need, to start with, a few 条件 which will be defined 正確に later. In a given 明言する／公表する of technique, 資源s and costs, the 雇用 of a given 容積／容量 of 労働 by an entrepreneur 伴う／関わるs him in two 肉親，親類d of expense: first of all, the 量s which he 支払う／賃金s out to the factors of 生産／産物 (排除的 of other entrepreneurs) for their 現在の services, which we shall call the factor cost of the 雇用 in question; and secondly, the 量s which he 支払う／賃金s out to other entrepreneurs for what he has to 購入（する） from them together with the sacrifice which he 背負い込むs by 雇うing the 器具／備品 instead of leaving it idle, which we shall call the 使用者 cost of the 雇用 in question. The 超過 of the value of the resulting 生産（高） over the sum of its factor cost and its 使用者 cost is the 利益（をあげる） or, as we shall call it, the income of the entrepreneur. The factor cost is, of course, the same thing, looked at from the point of 見解（をとる） of the entrepreneur, as what the factors of 生産／産物 regard as their income. Thus the factor cost and the entrepreneur's 利益（をあげる） （不足などを）補う, between them, what we shall define as the total income resulting from the 雇用 given by the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur's 利益（をあげる） thus defined is, as it should be, the 量 which he endeavours to maximise when he is deciding what 量 of 雇用 to 申し込む／申し出. It is いつかs convenient, when we are looking at it from the entrepreneur's 見地, to call the aggregate income (i.e. factor cost 加える 利益（をあげる）) resulting from a given 量 of 雇用 the proceeds of that 雇用. On the other 手渡す, the aggregate 供給（する） price of the 生産（高） of a given 量 of 雇用 is the 期待 of proceeds which will just make it 価値（がある） the while of the entrepreneurs to give that 雇用.
It follows that in a given 状況／情勢 of technique, 資源s and factor cost per 部隊 of 雇用, the 量 of 雇用, both in each individual 会社／堅い and 産業 and in the aggregate, depends on the 量 of the proceeds which the entrepreneurs 推定する／予想する to receive from the corresponding 生産（高）. For entrepreneurs will endeavour to 直す／買収する，八百長をする the 量 of 雇用 at the level which they 推定する／予想する to maximise the 超過 of the proceeds over the factor cost.
Let Z be the aggregate 供給（する） price of the 生産（高） from 雇うing N men, the 関係 between Z and N 存在 written Z = f(N), which can be called the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事. 類似して, let D be the proceeds which entrepreneurs 推定する／予想する to receive from the 雇用 of N men, the 関係 between D and N 存在 written D = f(N), which can be called the aggregate 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事.
Now if for a given value of N the 推定する／予想するd proceeds are greater than the aggregate 供給（する） price, i.e. if D is greater than Z, there will be an incentive to entrepreneurs to 増加する 雇用 beyond N and, if necessary, to raise costs by competing with one another for the factors of 生産／産物, up to the value of N for which Z has become equal to D. Thus the 容積／容量 of 雇用 is given by the point of 交差点 between the aggregate 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 and the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事; for it is at this point that the entrepreneurs' 期待 of 利益（をあげる）s will be maximised. The value of D at the point of the aggregate 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事, where it is intersected by the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事, will be called the 効果的な 需要・要求する. Since this is the 実体 of the General Theory of 雇用, which it will be our 反対する to expound, the 後継するing 一時期／支部s will be 大部分は 占領するd with 診察するing the さまざまな factors upon which these two 機能（する）／行事s depend.
The classical doctrine, on the other 手渡す, which used to be 表明するd categorically in the 声明 that '供給（する） creates its own 需要・要求する' and continues to underlie all 正統派の 経済的な theory, 伴う／関わるs a special 仮定／引き受けること as to the 関係 between these two 機能（する）／行事s. For '供給（する） creates its own 需要・要求する' must mean that f(N) and f(N) are equal for all values of N, i.e. for all levels of 生産（高） and 雇用; and that when there is an 増加する in Z( = f(N)) corresponding to an 増加する in N, D( = f(N)) やむを得ず 増加するs by the same 量 as Z. The classical theory assumes, in other words, that the aggregate 需要・要求する price (or proceeds) always 融通するs itself to the aggregate 供給（する） price; so that, whatever the value of N may be, the proceeds D assume a value equal to the aggregate 供給（する） price Z which corresponds to N. That is to say, 効果的な 需要・要求する, instead of having a unique equilibrium value, is an infinite 範囲 of values all 平等に admissible; and the 量 of 雇用 is indeterminate except in so far as the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働 始める，決めるs an upper 限界.
If this were true, 競争 between entrepreneurs would
always lead to an 拡大 of 雇用 up to the point at
which the 供給（する） of 生産（高） as a whole 中止するs to be elastic, i.e.
where a その上の 増加する in the value of the 効果的な 需要・要求する
will no longer be …を伴ってd by any 増加する in 生産（高）.
Evidently this 量s to the same thing as 十分な 雇用. In
the previous 一時期／支部 we have given a 鮮明度／定義 of 十分な
雇用 ーに関して／ーの点でs of the behaviour of 労働. An 代案／選択肢,
though 同等（の）, criterion is that at which we have now
arrived, すなわち a 状況／情勢 in which aggregate 雇用 is
inelastic in 返答 to an 増加する in the 効果的な 需要・要求する for
its 生産（高）. Thus Say's 法律, that the aggregate 需要・要求する price of
生産（高） as a whole is equal to its aggregate 供給（する） price for all
容積／容量s of 生産（高）, is 同等（の） to the proposition that there is
no 障害 to 十分な 雇用. If, however, this is not the true
法律 relating the aggregate 需要・要求する and 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事s, there is
a vitally important 一時期／支部 of 経済的な theory which remains to
be written and without which all discussions 関心ing the
容積／容量 of aggregate 雇用 are futile.
A 簡潔な／要約する 要約 of the theory of 雇用 to be worked out in the course of the に引き続いて 一時期／支部s may, perhaps, help the reader at this 行う／開催する／段階, even though it may not be fully intelligible. The 条件 伴う／関わるd will be more carefully defined in 予定 course. In this 要約 we shall assume that the money-行う and other factor costs are constant per 部隊 of 労働 雇うd. But this simplification, with which we shall dispense later, is introduced 単独で to 容易にする the 解説，博覧会. The 必須の character of the argument is 正確に the same whether or not money-給料, etc., are liable to change.
The 輪郭（を描く） of our theory can be 表明するd as follows. When 雇用 増加するs, aggregate real income is 増加するd. The psychology of the community is such that when aggregate real income is 増加するd aggregate 消費 is 増加するd, but not by so much as income. Hence 雇用者s would make a loss if the whole of the 増加するd 雇用 were to be 充てるd to 満足させるing the 増加するd 需要・要求する for 即座の 消費. Thus, to 正当化する any given 量 of 雇用 there must be an 量 of 現在の 投資 十分な to 吸収する the 超過 of total 生産（高） over what the community chooses to 消費する when 雇用 is at the given level. For unless there is this 量 of 投資, the 領収書s of the entrepreneurs will be いっそう少なく than is 要求するd to induce them to 申し込む／申し出 the given 量 of 雇用. It follows, therefore, that, given what we shall call the community's propensity to 消費する, the equilibrium level of 雇用, i.e. the level at which there is no 誘導 to 雇用者s as a whole either to 拡大する or to 契約 雇用, will depend on the 量 of 現在の 投資. The 量 of 現在の 投資 will depend, in turn, on what we shall call the 誘導 to 投資する; and the 誘導 to 投資する will be 設立する to depend on the relation between the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 and the コンビナート／複合体 of 率s of 利益／興味 on 貸付金s of さまざまな 成熟s and 危険s.
Thus, given the propensity to 消費する and the 率 of new 投資, there will be only one level of 雇用 一貫した with equilibrium; since any other level will lead to 不平等 between the aggregate 供給（する） price of 生産（高） as a whole and its aggregate 需要・要求する price. This level cannot be greater than 十分な 雇用, i.e. the real 行う cannot be いっそう少なく than the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働. But there is no 推論する／理由 in general for 推定する／予想するing it to be equal to 十分な 雇用. The 効果的な 需要・要求する associated with 十分な 雇用 is a special 事例／患者, only realised when the propensity to 消費する and the 誘導 to 投資する stand in a particular 関係 to one another. This particular 関係, which corresponds to the 仮定／引き受けることs of the classical theory, is in a sense an optimum 関係. But it can only 存在する when, by 事故 or design, 現在の 投資 供給するs an 量 of 需要・要求する just equal to the 超過 of the aggregate 供給（する） price of the 生産（高） resulting from 十分な 雇用 over what the community will choose to spend on consurnption when it is fully 雇うd.
This theory can be summed up in the に引き続いて propositions:
(1) In a given 状況／情勢 of technique, 資源s and costs, income (both money-income and real income) depends on the 容積／容量 of 雇用 N.
(2) The 関係 between the community's income and what it can be 推定する／予想するd to spend on 消費, 指定するd by D1, will depend on the psychological characteristic of the community, which we shall call its propensity to 消費する. That is to say, 消費 will depend on the level of aggregate income and, therefore, on the level of 雇用 N, except when there is some change in the propensity to 消費する.
(3) The 量 of 労働 N which the entrepreneurs decide to 雇う depends on the sum (D) of two 量s, すなわち D1, the 量 which the community is 推定する／予想するd to spend on 消費, and D2, the 量 which it is 推定する／予想するd to 充てる to new 投資. D is what we have called above the 効果的な 需要・要求する.
(4) Since D1 + D2 = D = f(N), where is the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事, and since, as we have seen in (2) above, D1 is a 機能（する）／行事 of N, which we may 令状 c(N), depending on the propensity to 消費する, it follows that f(N) - c(N) = D2.
(5) Hence the 容積／容量 of 雇用 in equilibrium depends on (i) the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事, , (ii) the propensity to 消費する, , and (iii) the 容積／容量 of 投資, D2. This is the essence of the General Theory of 雇用.
(6) For every value of N there is a corresponding ごくわずかの 生産性 of 労働 in the 行う-goods 産業s; and it is this which 決定するs the real 行う. (5) is, therefore, 支配する to the 条件 that N cannot 越える the value which 減ずるs the real 行う to equality with the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働. This means that not all changes in D are 両立できる with our 一時的な 仮定／引き受けること that money-給料 are constant. Thus it will be 必須の to a 十分な 声明 of our theory to dispense with this 仮定／引き受けること.
(7) On the classical theory, によれば which D = f(N) for all values of N, the 容積／容量 of 雇用 is in 中立の equilibrium for all values of N いっそう少なく than its 最大限 value; so that the 軍隊s of 競争 between entrepreneurs may be 推定する／予想するd to 押し進める it to this 最大限 value. Only at this point, on the classical theory, can there be stable equilibrium.
(8) When 雇用 増加するs, D1 will 増加する, but not by so much as D; since when our income 増加するs our 消費 増加するs also, but not by so much. The 重要な to our practical problem is to be 設立する in this psychological 法律. For it follows from this that the greater the 容積／容量 of 雇用 the greater will be the gap between the aggregate 供給（する） price (Z) of the corresponding 生産（高） and the sum (D1) which the entrepreneurs can 推定する／予想する to get 支援する out of the 支出 of 消費者s. Hence, if there is no change in the propensity to 消費する, 雇用 cannot 増加する, unless at the same time D2 is 増加するing so as to fill the 増加するing gap between Z and D1. Thusｾexcept on the special 仮定／引き受けることs of the classical theory によれば which there is some 軍隊 in 操作／手術 which, when 雇用 増加するs, always 原因（となる）s D2 to 増加する 十分に to fill the 広げるing gap between Z and D1ｾthe 経済的な system may find itself in stable equilibrium with N at a level below 十分な 雇用, すなわち at the level given by the 交差点 of the aggregate 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 with the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事.
Thus the 容積／容量 of 雇用 is not 決定するd by the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of real 給料, except in so far as the 供給（する） of 労働 利用できる at a given real 行う 始める，決めるs a 最大限 level to 雇用. The propensity to 消費する and the 率 of new 投資 決定する between them the 容積／容量 of 雇用, and the 容積／容量 of 雇用 is uniquely 関係のある to a given level of real 給料ｾnot the other way 一連の会議、交渉／完成する. If the propensity to 消費する and the 率 of new 投資 result in a deficient 効果的な 需要・要求する, the actual level of 雇用 will 落ちる short of the 供給（する） of 労働 潜在的に 利用できる at the 存在するing real 行う, and the equilibrium real 行う will be greater than the ごくわずかの disutility of the equilibrium level of 雇用.
This 分析 供給（する）s us with an explanation of the paradox of poverty in the 中央 of plenty. For the mere 存在 of an insufficiency of 効果的な 需要・要求する may, and often will, bring the 増加する of 雇用 to a 行き詰まり before a level of 十分な 雇用 has been reached. The insufficiency of 効果的な 需要・要求する will inhibit the 過程 of 生産／産物 in spite of the fact that the ごくわずかの 製品 of 労働 still 越えるs in value the ごくわずかの disutility of 雇用.
Moreover the richer the community, the wider will tend to be the gap between its actual and its 可能性のある 生産／産物; and therefore the more obvious and outrageous the defects of the 経済的な system. For a poor community will be 傾向がある to 消費する by far the greater part of its 生産（高）, so that a very modest 手段 of 投資 will be 十分な to 供給する 十分な 雇用; 反して a 豊富な community will have to discover much ampler 適切な時期s for 投資 if the saving propensities of its wealthier members are to be 両立できる with the 雇用 of its poorer members. If in a 潜在的に 豊富な community the 誘導 to 投資する is weak, then, in spite of its 可能性のある wealth, the working of the 原則 of 効果的な 需要・要求する will 強要する it to 減ずる its actual 生産（高）, until, in spite of its 可能性のある wealth, it has become so poor that its 黒字／過剰 over its 消費 is 十分に 減らすd to correspond to the 証拠不十分 of the 誘導 to 投資する.
But worse still. Not only is the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する 女性 in a 豊富な community, but, 借りがあるing to its accumulation of 資本／首都 存在 already larger, the 適切な時期s for その上の 投資 are いっそう少なく attractive unless the 率 of 利益／興味 落ちるs at a 十分に 早い 率; which 'brings us to the theory of the 率 of 利益／興味 and to the 推論する／理由s why it does not automatically 落ちる to the appropriate level, which will 占領する 調書をとる／予約する IV.
Thus the 分析 of the propensity to 消費する, the 鮮明度／定義
of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 and the theory of the 率
of 利益／興味 are the three main gaps in our 存在するing knowledge
which it will be necessary to fill. When this has been
遂行するd, we shall find that the theory of prices 落ちるs into its proper
place as a 事柄 which is 子会社 to our general theory. We
shall discover, however, that money plays an 必須の part in
our theory of the 率 of 利益／興味; and we shall 試みる／企てる to
disentangle the peculiar 特徴 of money which
distinguish it from other things.
III
The idea that we can 安全に neglect the aggregate 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 is 根底となる to the Ricardian 経済的なs, which underlie what we have been taught for more than a century. Malthus, indeed, had 熱心に …に反対するd Ricardo's doctrine that it was impossible for 効果的な 需要・要求する to be deficient; but vainly. For, since Malthus was unable to explain 明確に (apart from an 控訴，上告 to the facts of ありふれた 観察) how and why 効果的な 需要・要求する could be deficient or 過度の, he failed to furnish an 代案／選択肢 construction; and Ricardo 征服する／打ち勝つd England as 完全に as the 宗教上の Inquisition 征服する／打ち勝つd Spain. Not only was his theory 受託するd by the city, by statesmen and by the academic world. But 論争 中止するd; the other point of 見解（をとる） 完全に disappeared; it 中止するd to be discussed. The 広大な／多数の／重要な puzzle of 効果的な 需要・要求する with which Malthus had 格闘するd 消えるd from 経済的な literature. You will not find it について言及するd even once in the whole 作品 of Marshall, Edgeworth and Professor Pigou, from whose 手渡すs the classical theory has received its most 円熟した embodiment. It could only live on furtively, below the surface, in the 暗黒街s of Karl Marx, Silvio Gesell or Major Douglas.
The completeness of the Ricardian victory is something of a curiosity and a mystery. It must have been 予定 to a コンビナート／複合体 of suitabilities in the doctrine to the 環境 into which it was 事業／計画（する）d. That it reached 結論s やめる different from what the ordinary uninstructed person would 推定する／予想する, 追加するd, I suppose, to its 知識人 prestige. That its teaching, translated into practice, was 厳格な，質素な and often unpalatable, lent it virtue. That it was adapted to carry a 広大な and 一貫した 論理（学）の superstructure, gave it beauty. That it could explain much social 不正 and 明らかな cruelty as an 必然的な 出来事/事件 in the 計画／陰謀 of 進歩, and the 試みる／企てる to change such things as likely on the whole to do more 害（を与える） than good, commended it to 当局. That it afforded a 手段 of justification to the 解放する／自由な activities of the individual 資本主義者, attracted to it the support of the 支配的な social 軍隊 behind 当局.
But although the doctrine itself has remained unquestioned by 正統派の 経済学者s up to a late date, its signal 失敗 for 目的s of 科学の 予測 has 大いに impaired, in the course of time, the prestige of its practitioners. For professional 経済学者s, after Malthus, were 明らかに unmoved by the 欠如（する） of correspondence between the results of their theory and the facts of 観察;ｾa discrepancy which the ordinary man has not failed to 観察する, with the result of his growing 不本意 to （許可，名誉などを）与える to 経済学者s that 手段 of 尊敬（する）・点 which he gives to other groups of scientists whose theoretical results are 確認するd by 観察 when they are 適用するd to the facts.
The celebrated 楽観主義 of 伝統的な 経済的な theory, which
has led to 経済学者s 存在 looked upon as Candides, who, having
left this world for the cultivation of their gardens, teach that
all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds 供給するd
we will let 井戸／弁護士席 alone, is also to be traced, I think, to their
having neglected to take account of the drag on 繁栄 which
can be 演習d by an insufficiency of 効果的な 需要・要求する. For
there would 明白に be a natural 傾向 に向かって the optimum
雇用 of 資源s in a society which was 機能（する）／行事ing after
the manner of the classical postulates. It may 井戸／弁護士席 be that the
classical theory 代表するs the way in which we should like our
economy to behave. But to assume that it 現実に does so is to
assume our difficulties away.
一時期／支部 4
I
In this and the next three 一時期／支部s we shall be 占領するd with an 試みる／企てる to （疑いを）晴らす up 確かな perplexities which have no peculiar or 排除的 relevance to the problems which it is our special 目的 to 診察する. Thus these 一時期／支部s are in the nature of a digression, which will 妨げる us for a time from pursulng our main 主題. Their 支配する-事柄 is only discussed here because it does not happen to have been already 扱う／治療するd どこかよそで in a way which I find 適する to the needs of my own particular enquiry.
The three perplexities which most 妨げるd my 進歩 in
令状ing this 調書をとる／予約する, so that I could not 表明する myself
conveniently until I had 設立する some 解答 for them, are:
firstly, the choice of the 部隊s of 量 appropriate to the
problems of the 経済的な system as a whole; secondly, the part
played by 期待 in 経済的な 分析; and, thirdly, the
鮮明度／定義 of income.
II
That the 部隊s, ーに関して／ーの点でs of which 経済学者s 一般的に work, are unsatisfactory can be illustrated by the 概念s of the 国家の （株主への）配当, the 在庫／株 of real 資本／首都 and the general price-level:
(i) The 国家の （株主への）配当, as defined by Marshall and Professor Pigou, 対策 the 容積／容量 of 現在の 生産（高） or real income and not the value of 生産（高） or money-income. その上に, it depends, in some sense, on 逮捕する 生産（高）;ｾon the 逮捕する 新規加入, that is to say, to the 資源s of the community 利用できる for 消費 or for retention as 資本／首都 在庫／株, 予定 to the 経済的な activities and sacrifices of the 現在の period, after 許すing for the wastage of the 在庫／株 of real 資本／首都 存在するing at the 開始／学位授与式 of the period. On this basis an 試みる／企てる is made to 築く a quantitative science. But it is a 墓／厳粛／彫る／重大な 反対 to this 鮮明度／定義 for such a 目的 that the community's 生産（高） of goods and services is a 非，不，無-homogeneous コンビナート／複合体 which cannot be 手段d, 厳密に speaking, except in 確かな special 事例／患者s, as for example when all the items of one 生産（高） are 含むd in the same 割合s in another 生産（高）.
(ii) The difficulty is even greater when, in order to calculate 逮捕する 生産（高）, we try to 手段 the 逮捕する 新規加入 to 資本／首都 器具／備品; for we have to find some basis for a quantitative comparison between the new items of 器具／備品 produced during the period and the old items which have 死なせる／死ぬd by wastage. ーするために arrive at the 逮捕する 国家の （株主への）配当, Professor Pigou deducts such obsolescence, etc., 'as may 公正に／かなり be called "normal"; and the practical 実験（する） of normality is that the depletion is 十分に 正規の／正選手 to be foreseen, if not in 詳細（に述べる）, at least in the large'. But, since this deduction is not a deduction ーに関して／ーの点でs of money, he is 伴う／関わるd in assuming that there can be a change in physical 量, although there has been no physical change; i.e. he is covertly introducing changes in value.
Moreover, he is unable to 工夫する any 満足な 決まり文句／製法 to 評価する new 器具／備品 against old when, 借りがあるing to changes in technique, the two are not 同一の. I believe that the 概念 at which Professor Pigou is 目的（とする）ing is the 権利 and appropriate 概念 for 経済的な 分析. But, until a 満足な system of 部隊s has been 可決する・採択するd, its 正確な 鮮明度／定義 is an impossible 仕事. The problem of comparing one real 生産（高） with another and of then calculating 逮捕する 生産（高） by setting off new items of 器具／備品 against the wastage of old items 現在のs conundrums which 許す, one can confidently say, of no 解答.
(iii) Thirdly, the 井戸／弁護士席-known, but 避けられない, element of vagueness which admittedly …に出席するs the 概念 of the general price-level makes this 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 very unsatisfactory for the 目的s of a causal 分析, which せねばならない be exact.
にもかかわらず these difficulties are rightly regarded as 'conundrums'. They are '純粋に theoretical' in the sense that they never perplex, or indeed enter in any way into, 商売／仕事 決定／判定勝ち（する）s and have no relevance to the causal sequence of 経済的な events, which are （疑いを）晴らす-削減（する） and determinate in spite of the quantitative indeterminacy of these 概念s. It is natural, therefore, to 結論する that they not only 欠如（する） precision but are unnecessary. 明白に our quantitative 分析 must be 表明するd without using any quantitatively vague 表現s. And, indeed, as soon as one makes the 試みる／企てる, it becomes （疑いを）晴らす, as I hope to show, that one can get on much better without them.
The fact that two incommensurable collections of miscellaneous
反対するs cannot in themselves 供給する the 構成要素 for a
quantitative 分析 need not, of course, 妨げる us from making
approximate 統計に基づく comparisons, depending on some 幅の広い
element of judgment rather than of strict 計算／見積り, which may
所有する significance and 有効性，効力 within 確かな 限界s.
But the proper place for such things as 逮捕する real 生産（高） and
the general level of prices lies within the field of historical
and 統計に基づく description, and their 目的 should be to
満足させる historical or social curiosity, a 目的 for which
perfect precisionｾsuch as our causal
分析 要求するs, whether or not our knowledge of the actual
values of the 関連した 量s is 完全にする or exactｾis neither usual nor necessary. To say
that 逮捕する 生産（高） to-day is greater, but the price-level lower,
than ten years ago or one year ago, is a proposition of a 類似の
character to the 声明 that Queen Victoria was a better queen
but not a happier woman than Queen Elizabethｾa
proposition not without meaning and not without 利益／興味, but
unsuitable as 構成要素 for the differential calculus. Our
precision will be a mock precision if we try to use such partly
vague and 非，不，無-quantitative 概念s as the basis of a
quantitative 分析.
III
On every particular occasion, let it be remembered, an entrepreneur is 関心d with 決定／判定勝ち（する）s as to the 規模 on which to work a given 資本／首都 器具／備品; and when we say that the 期待 of an 増加するd 需要・要求する, i.e. a raising of the aggregate 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事, will lead to an 増加する in aggregate 生産（高）, we really mean that the 会社／堅いs, which own the 資本／首都 器具／備品, will be induced to associate with it a greater aggregate 雇用 of 労働. In the 事例／患者 of an individual 会社／堅い or 産業 producing a homogeneous 製品 we can speak legitimately, if we wish, of 増加するs or 減少（する）s of 生産（高）. But when we are aggregating the activities of all 会社／堅いs, we cannot speak 正確に except ーに関して／ーの点でs of 量s of 雇用 適用するd to a given 器具／備品. The 概念s of 生産（高） as a whole and its price-level are not 要求するd in this 状況, since we have no need of an 絶対の 手段 of 現在の aggregate 生産（高）, such as would enable us to compare its 量 with the 量 which would result from the 協会 of a different 資本／首都 器具／備品 with a different 量 of 雇用. When, for 目的s of description or rough comparison, we wish to speak of an 増加する of 生産（高）, we must rely on the general presumption that the 量 of 雇用 associated with a given 資本／首都 器具／備品 will be a 満足な 索引 of the 量 of resultant 生産（高）;ｾthe two 存在 推定するd to 増加する and 減少（する） together, though not in a 限定された 数値／数字による 割合.
In 取引，協定ing with the theory of 雇用 I 提案する, therefore, to make use of only two 根底となる 部隊s of 量, すなわち, 量s of money-value and 量s of 雇用. The first of these is 厳密に homogeneous, and the second can be made so. For, in so far as different grades and 肉親，親類d of 労働 and 給料を受けている 援助 enjoy a more or いっそう少なく 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 親族 remuneration, the 量 of 雇用 can be 十分に defined for our 目的 by taking an hour's 雇用 of ordinary 労働 as our 部隊 and 負わせるing an hour's 雇用 of special 労働 in 割合 to its remuneration; i.e. an hour of special 労働 remunerated at 二塁打 ordinary 率s will count as two 部隊s. We shall call the 部隊 in which the 量 of 雇用 is 手段d the 労働-部隊; and the money-行う of a 労働-部隊 we shall call the 行う-部隊. Thus, if E is the 給料 (and salaries) 法案, W the 行う-部隊, and N the 量 of 雇用, E = N ﾗ W.
This 仮定／引き受けること of homogeneity in the 供給（する） of 労働 is not upset by the obvious fact of 広大な／多数の／重要な differences in the specialised 技術 of individual 労働者s and in their suitability for different 占領／職業s. For, if the remuneration of the 労働者s is 比例する to their efficiency, the differences are dealt with by our having regarded individuals as 与える／捧げるing to the 供給（する） of 労働 in 割合 to their remuneration; whilst if, as 生産（高） 増加するs, a given 会社／堅い has to bring in 労働 which is いっそう少なく and いっそう少なく efficient for its special 目的s per 行う-部隊 paid to it, this is 単に one factor の中で others 主要な to a 減らすing return from the 資本／首都 器具／備品 ーに関して／ーの点でs of 生産（高） as more 労働 is 雇うd on it. We subsume, so to speak, the 非，不，無-homogeneity of 平等に remunerated 労働 部隊s in the 器具／備品, which we regard as いっそう少なく and いっそう少なく adapted to 雇う the 利用できる 労働 部隊s as 生産（高） 増加するs, instead of regarding the 利用できる 労働 部隊s as いっそう少なく and いっそう少なく adapted to use a homogeneous 資本／首都 器具／備品. Thus if there is no 黒字／過剰 of specialised or practised 労働 and the use of いっそう少なく suitable 労働 伴う／関わるs a higher 労働 cost per 部隊 of 生産（高）, this means that the 率 at which the return from the 器具／備品 減らすs as 雇用 増加するs is more 早い than it would be if there were such a 黒字／過剰. Even in the 限界ing 事例／患者 where different 労働 部隊s were so 高度に specialised as to be altogether incapable of 存在 代用品，人d for one another, there is no awkwardness; for this 単に means that the elasticity of 供給（する） of 生産（高） from a particular type of 資本／首都 器具／備品 落ちるs suddenly to 無 when all the 利用できる 労働 specialised to its use is already 雇うd. Thus our 仮定／引き受けること of a homogeneous 部隊 of 労働 伴う／関わるs no difficulties unless there is 広大な／多数の／重要な 不安定 in the 親族 remuneration of different 労働-部隊s; and even this difficulty can be dealt with, if it arises, by supposing a 早い 義務／負債 to change in the 供給（する） of 労働 and the 形態／調整 of the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事.
It is my belief that much unnecessary perplexity can be
避けるd if we 限界 ourselves 厳密に to the two 部隊s, money
and 労働, when we are 取引，協定ing with the behaviour of the
経済的な system as a whole; reserving the use of 部隊s of
particular 生産（高）s and 器具／備品s to the occasions when we are
analysing the 生産（高） of individual 会社／堅いs or 産業s in
孤立／分離; and the use of vague 概念s, such as the 量 of
生産（高） as a whole, the 量 of 資本／首都 器具／備品 as a whole
and the general level of prices, to the occasions when we are
試みる／企てるing some historical comparison which is within 確かな
(perhaps 公正に／かなり wide) 限界s avowedly unprecise and approximate.
It follows that we shall 手段 changes in 現在の 生産（高） by
言及／関連 to the number of hours of 労働 paid for (whether to
満足させる 消費者s or to produce fresh 資本／首都 器具／備品) on the
存在するing 資本／首都 器具／備品, hours of 技術d 労働 存在
負わせるd in 割合 to their remuneration. We have no need of
a quantitative comparison between this 生産（高） and the 生産（高）
which would result from associating a different 始める，決める of 労働者s
with a different 資本／首都 器具／備品. To 予報する how entrepreneurs
所有するing a given 器具／備品 will 答える／応じる to a 転換 in the
aggregate 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 it is not necessary to know how the
量 of the resulting 生産（高）, the 基準 of life and the
general level of prices would compare with what they were at a
different date or in another country.
IV
It is easily shown that the 条件s of 供給（する）, such as are
usually 表明するd ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 供給（する） curve, and the
elasticity of 供給（する） relating 生産（高） to price, can be 扱うd in
条件 of our two chosen 部隊s by means of the aggregate 供給（する）
機能（する）／行事, without 言及／関連 to 量s of 生産（高）, whether we
are 関心d with a particular 会社／堅い or 産業 or with 経済的な
activity as a whole. For the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事 for a
given 会社／堅い (and 類似して for a given 産業 or for 産業 as
a whole) is given by
Zr = fr(Nr),
where Zr is the proceeds (逮捕する of 使用者
cost) the 期待 of which will induce a level of 雇用 Nr.
If, therefore, the relation between 雇用 and 生産（高） is such
that an 雇用 Nr results in an
生産（高） Or, where Or = yr(Nr),
it follows that
Zr + Ur(Nr) fr(Nr) + Ur(Nr)
p = ｾｾｾｾｾｾｾ = ｾｾｾｾｾｾｾｾｾ
Or yr(Nr)
is the ordinary 供給（する） curve, where Ur(Nr) is the (推定する／予想するd) 使用者 cost corresponding to a level of 雇用 Nr.
Thus in the 事例／患者 of each homogeneous 商品／必需品, for which Or = yr(Nr)
has a 限定された meaning, we can 評価する Zr = fr(Nr)
in the ordinary way; but we can then aggregate the Nr's
in a way in which we cannot aggregate the Or's,
since SOr
is not a 数値／数字による 量. Moreover, if we can assume that, in
a given 環境, a given aggregate 雇用 will be
分配するd in a unique way between different 産業s, so that
Nr is a 機能（する）／行事 of N, その上の
simplifications are possible.
一時期／支部 5
I
All 生産／産物 is for the 目的 of 最終的に 満足させるing a 消費者. Time usually elapses, howeverｾand いつかs much timeｾbetween the incurring of costs by the 生産者 (with the 消費者 in 見解（をとる）) and the 購入（する） of the 生産（高） by the ultimate 消費者. 一方／合間 the entrepreneur (含むing both the 生産者 and the 投資家 in this description) has to form the best 期待s he can as to what the 消費者s will be 用意が出来ている to 支払う／賃金 when he is ready to 供給（する） them (直接／まっすぐに or 間接に) after the elapse of what may be a 非常に長い period; and he has no choice but to be guided by these 期待s, if he is to produce at all by 過程s which 占領する time.
These 期待s, upon which 商売／仕事 決定／判定勝ち（する）s depend, 落ちる into two groups, 確かな individuals or 会社／堅いs 存在 specialised in the 商売／仕事 of でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるing the first type of 期待 and others in the 商売／仕事 of でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるing the second. The first type is 関心d with the price which a 製造業者 can 推定する／予想する to get for his 'finished' 生産（高） at the time when he commits himself to starting the 過程 which will produce it; 生産（高） 存在 'finished' (from the point of 見解（をとる） of the 製造業者) when it is ready to be used or to be sold to a second party. The second type is 関心d with what the entrepreneur can hope to earn in the 形態／調整 of 未来 returns if he 購入（する）s (or, perhaps, 製造（する）s) 'finished' 生産（高） as an 新規加入 to his 資本／首都 器具／備品. We may call the former short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待 and the latter long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待.
Thus the behaviour of each individual 会社／堅い in deciding its daily 生産（高） will be 決定するd by its short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待sｾ期待s as to the cost of 生産（高） on さまざまな possible 規模s and 期待s as to the sale-proceeds of this 生産（高）; though, in the 事例／患者 of 新規加入s to 資本／首都 器具／備品 and even of sales to distributors, these short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待s will 大部分は depend on the long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 (or medium-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語) 期待s of other parties. It is upon these さまざまな 期待s that the 量 of 雇用 which the 会社／堅いs 申し込む／申し出 will depend. The 現実に realised results of the 生産／産物 and sale of 生産（高） will only be 関連した to 雇用 in so far as they 原因（となる） a modification of その後の 期待s. Nor, on the other 手渡す, are the 初めの 期待s 関連した, which led the 会社／堅い to acquire the 資本／首都 器具／備品 and the 在庫／株 of 中間の 製品s and half-finished 構成要素s with which it finds itself at the time when it has to decide the next day's 生産（高）. Thus, on each and every occasion of such a 決定／判定勝ち（する）, the 決定／判定勝ち（する） will be made, with 言及／関連 indeed to this 器具／備品 and 在庫／株, but in the light of the 現在の 期待s of 見込みのある costs and sale-proceeds.
Now, in general, a change in 期待s (whether short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 or long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語) will only produce its 十分な 影響 on 雇用 over a かなりの period. The change in 雇用 予定 to a change in 期待s will not be the same on the second day after the change as on the first, or the same on the third day as on the second, and so on, even though there be no その上の change in 期待s. In the 事例／患者 of short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待s this is because changes in 期待 are not, as a 支配する, 十分に violent or 早い, when they are for the worse, to 原因（となる） the abandonment of work on all the 生産力のある 過程s which, in the light of the 改訂するd 期待, it was a mistake to have begun; whilst, when they are for the better, some time for 準備 must needs elapse before 雇用 can reach the level at which it would have stood if the 明言する／公表する of 期待 had been 改訂するd sooner. In the 事例／患者 of long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待s, 器具／備品 which will not be 取って代わるd will continue to give 雇用 until it is worn out; whilst when the change in long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待s is for the better, 雇用 may be at a higher level at first, than it will be after there has been time to adjust the 器具／備品 to the new 状況／情勢.
If we suppose a 明言する／公表する of 期待 to continue for a 十分な length of time for the 影響 on 雇用 to have worked itself out so 完全に that there is, 概して speaking, no piece of 雇用 going on which would not have taken place if the new 明言する／公表する of 期待 had always 存在するd, the 安定した level of 雇用 thus 達成するd may be called the long-period 雇用 corresponding to that 明言する／公表する of 期待. It follows that, although 期待 may change so frequently that the actual level of 雇用 has never had time to reach the long-period 雇用 corresponding to the 存在するing 明言する／公表する of 期待, にもかかわらず every 明言する／公表する of 期待 has its 限定された corresponding level of long-period 雇用.
Let us consider, first of all, the 過程 of 移行 to a long-period position 予定 to a change in 期待, which is not 混乱させるd or interrupted by any その上の change in 期待. We will first suppose that the change is of such a character that the new long-period 雇用 will be greater than the old. Now, as a 支配する, it will only be the 率 of input which will be much 影響する／感情d at the beginning, that is to say, the 容積／容量 of work on the earlier 行う／開催する／段階s of new 過程s of 生産／産物, whilst the 生産（高） of 消費-goods and the 量 of 雇用 on the later 行う／開催する／段階s of 過程s which were started before the change will remain much the same as before. In so far as there were 在庫／株s of partly finished goods, this 結論 may be 修正するd; though it is likely to remain true that the 初期の 増加する in 雇用 will be modest. As, however, the days pass by, 雇用 will 徐々に 増加する. Moreover, it is 平易な to conceive of 条件s which will 原因（となる） it to 増加する at some 行う／開催する／段階 to a higher level than the new long-period 雇用. For the 過程 of building up 資本／首都 to 満足させる the new 明言する／公表する of 期待 may lead to more 雇用 and also to more 現在の 消費 than will occur when the long-period position has been reached. Thus the change in 期待 may lead to a 漸進的な 盛り上がり in the level of 雇用, rising to a 頂点（に達する） and then 拒絶する／低下するing to the new long-period level. The same thing may occur even if the new long-period level is the same as the old, if the change 代表するs a change in the direction of 消費 which （判決などを）下すs 確かな 存在するing 過程s and their 器具／備品 obsolete. Or again, if the new long-period 雇用 is いっそう少なく than the old, the level of 雇用 during the 移行 may 落ちる for a time below what the new long-period level is going to be. Thus a mere change in 期待 is 有能な of producing an oscillation of the same 肉親，親類d of 形態／調整 as a cyclical movement, in the course of working itself out. It was movements of this 肉親，親類d which I discussed in my Treatise on Money in 関係 with the building up or the depletion of 在庫／株s of working and liquid 資本／首都 consequent on change.
An 連続する 過程 of 移行, such as the above, to
a new long-period position can be 複雑にするd in 詳細（に述べる）. But the
actual course of events is more 複雑にするd still. For the 明言する／公表する
of 期待 is liable to constant change, a new 期待
存在 superimposed long before the previous change has fully
worked itself out; so that the 経済的な machine is 占領するd at
any given time with a number of overlapping activities, the
存在 of which is 予定 to さまざまな past 明言する／公表するs of 期待.
II
This leads us to the relevance of this discussion for our 現在の 目的. It is evident from the above that the level of 雇用 at any time depends, in a sense, not 単に on the 存在するing 明言する／公表する of 期待 but on the 明言する／公表するs of 期待 which have 存在するd over a 確かな past period. にもかかわらず past 期待s, which have not yet worked themselves out, are 具体的に表現するd in the to-day's 資本／首都 器具／備品 with 言及／関連 to which the entrepreneur has to make to-day's 決定／判定勝ち（する）s, and only 影響（力） his 決定／判定勝ち（する）s in so far as they are so 具体的に表現するd. It follows, therefore, that, in spite of the above, to-day's 雇用 can be 正確に 述べるd as 存在 治める／統治するd by to-day's 期待s taken in 合同 with to-day's 資本／首都 器具／備品.
表明する 言及／関連 to 現在の long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待s can seldom be 避けるd. But it will often be 安全な to omit 表明する 言及／関連 to short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待, in 見解（をとる） of the fact that in practice the 過程 of 改正 of short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待 is a 漸進的な and continuous one, carried on 大部分は in the light of realised results; so that 推定する／予想するd and realised results run into and overlap one another in their 影響（力）. For, although 生産（高） and 雇用 are 決定するd by the 生産者's short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待s and not by past results, the most 最近の results usually play a predominant part in 決定するing what these 期待s are. It would be too 複雑にするd to work out the 期待s de novo whenever a 生産力のある 過程 was 存在 started; and it would, moreover, be a waste of time since a large part of the circumstances usually continue 大幅に 不変の from one day to the next. Accordingly it is sensible for 生産者s to base their 期待s on the 仮定／引き受けること that the most recently realised results will continue, except in so far as there are 限定された 推論する／理由s for 推定する／予想するing a change. Thus in practice there is a large overlap between the 影響s on 雇用 of the realised sale-proceeds of 最近の 生産（高） and those of the sale-proceeds 推定する／予想するd from 現在の input; and 生産者s' 予測（する）s are more often 徐々に 修正するd in the light of results than in 予期 of 見込みのある changes.
にもかかわらず, we must not forget that, in the 事例／患者 of 持続する
goods, the 生産者's short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待s are based on the
現在の long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待s of the 投資家; and it is of the
nature of long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待s that they cannot be checked at
short intervals in the light of realised results. Moreover, as we
shall see in 一時期／支部 12, where we shall consider long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語
期待s in more 詳細（に述べる）, they are liable to sudden 改正.
Thus the factor of 現在の long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待s cannot be even
だいたい 除去するd or 取って代わるd by realised results.
一時期／支部 6
I. Income
During any period of time an entrepreneur will have sold finished 生産（高） to 消費者s or to other entrepreneurs for a 確かな sum which we will 指定する as A. He will also have spent a 確かな sum, 指定するd by A1, on 購入（する）ing finished 生産（高） from other entrepreneurs. And he will 結局最後にはーなる with a 資本／首都 器具／備品, which 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 含むs both his 在庫／株s of unfinished goods or working 資本／首都 and his 在庫／株s of finished goods, having a value G.
Some part, however, of A + G - A1 will be attributable, not to the activities of the period in question, but to the 資本／首都 器具／備品 which he had at the beginning of the period. We must, therefore, ーするために arrive at what we mean by the income of the 現在の period, deduct from A + G - A1 a 確かな sum, to 代表する that part of its value which has been (in some sense) 与える／捧げるd by the 器具／備品 相続するd from the previous period. The problem of defining income is solved as soon as we have 設立する a 満足な method for calculating this deduction.
There are two possible 原則s for calculating it, each of which has a 確かな significance;ｾone of them in 関係 with 生産／産物, and the other in 関係 with 消費. Let us consider them in turn.
(i) The actual value G of the 資本／首都
器具／備品 at the end of the period is the 逮捕する result of the entrepreneur,
on the one 手渡す, having 持続するd and 改善するd it during the
period, both by 購入（する）s from other entrepreneurs and by work
done upon it by himself, and, on the other 手渡す, having exhausted
or depreciated it through using it to produce 生産（高）. If he had
decided not to use it to produce 生産（高）, there is,
にもかかわらず, a 確かな optimum sum which it would have paid him
to spend on 持続するing and 改善するing it. Let us suppose that, in
this event, he would have spent B' on its 維持／整備 and
改良, and that, having had this spent on it, it would have
been 価値（がある） G' at the end of the period. That is to say, G' - B' is the 最大限 逮捕する value
which might have been 保存するd from the previous period, if it
had not been used to produce A. The 超過 of this
可能性のある value of the 器具／備品 over G - A1 is the 手段
of what has been sacrificed (one way or another) to produce A.
Let us call this 量, すなわち
(G' - B') - (G - A1),
which 対策 the sacrifice of value 伴う／関わるd in the 生産／産物 of A, the 使用者 cost of A. 使用者 cost will be written U. The 量 paid out by the entrepreneur to the other factors of 生産／産物 in return for their services, which from their point of 見解（をとる） is their income, we will call the factor cost of A. The sum of the factor cost F and the 使用者 cost U we shall call the prime cost of the 生産（高） A.
We can then define the income of the entrepreneur as 存在 the 超過 of the value of his finished 生産（高） sold during the period over his prime cost. The entrepreneur's income, that is to say, is taken as 存在 equal to the 量, depending on his 規模 of 生産／産物, which he endeavours to maximise, i.e. to his 甚だしい／１２ダース 利益（をあげる） in the ordinary sense of this 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語;ｾwhich agrees with ありふれた sense. Hence, since the income of the 残り／休憩（する） of the community is equal to the entrepreneur's factor cost, aggregate income is equal to A - U.
Income, thus defined, is a 完全に unambiguous 量. Moreover, since it is the entrepreneur's 期待 of the 超過 of this 量 over his 去っていく／社交的なs to the other factors of 生産／産物 which he endeavours to maximise when he decides how much 雇用 to give to the other factors of 生産／産物, it is the 量 which is causally 重要な for 雇用.
It is 考えられる, of course, that G - A1 may 越える G' - B', so that 使用者 cost will be 消極的な. For example, this may 井戸／弁護士席 be the 事例／患者 if we happen to choose our period in such a way that input has been 増加するing during the period but without there having been time for the 増加するd 生産（高） to reach the 行う／開催する／段階 of 存在 finished and sold. It will also be the 事例／患者, whenever there is 肯定的な 投資, if we imagine 産業 to be so much 統合するd that entrepreneurs make most of their 器具／備品 for themselves. Since, however, 使用者 cost is only 消極的な when the entrepreneur has been 増加するing his 資本／首都 器具／備品 by his own 労働, we can, in an economy where 資本／首都 器具／備品 is 大部分は 製造（する）d by different 会社／堅いs from those which use it, 普通は think of 使用者 cost as 存在 肯定的な. Moreover, it is difficult to conceive of a 事例／患者 where ごくわずかの 使用者 cost associated with an 増加する in A, i.e. dU/dA, will be other than 肯定的な.
It may be convenient to について言及する here, in 予期 of the latter part of this 一時期／支部, that, for the community as a whole, the aggregate 消費 (C) of the period is equal to S(A - A1), and the aggregate 投資 (I) is equal to S(A1 - U). Moreover, U is the individual entrepreneur's disinvestment (and - U his 投資) in 尊敬（する）・点 of his own 器具／備品 排除的 of what he buys from other entrepreneurs. Thus in a 完全に 統合するd system (where A1 = 0) 消費 is equal to A and 投資 to - U, i.e. to G - (G' - B'). The slight 複雑化 of the above, through the introduction of A1, is 簡単に 予定 to the desirability of 供給するing in a generalised way for the 事例／患者 of a 非，不，無-統合するd system of 生産／産物.
その上に, the 効果的な 需要・要求する is 簡単に the aggregate income (or proceeds) which the entrepreneurs 推定する／予想する to receive, inclusive of the incomes which they will 手渡す on to the other factors of 生産／産物, from the 量 of 現在の 雇用 which they decide to give. The aggregate 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 relates さまざまな hypothetical 量s of 雇用 to the proceeds which their 生産（高）s are 推定する／予想するd to 産する／生じる; and the 効果的な 需要・要求する is the point on the aggregate 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 which becomes 効果的な because, taken in 合同 with the 条件s of 供給（する）, it corresponds to the level of 雇用 which maximises the entrepreneur's 期待 of 利益（をあげる）.
This 始める，決める of 鮮明度／定義s also has the advantage that we can
equate the ごくわずかの proceeds (or income) to the ごくわずかの factor
cost; and thus arrive at the same sort of propositions relating
ごくわずかの proceeds thus defined to ごくわずかの factor costs as have
been 明言する／公表するd by those 経済学者s who, by ignoring 使用者 cost or
assuming it to be 無, have equated 供給（する） price
to ごくわずかの factor cost.
(ii) We turn, next, to the second of the 原則s referred
to above. We have dealt so far with that part of the change in
the value of the 資本／首都 器具／備品 at the end of the period as
compared with its value at the beginning which is 予定 to the voluntary
決定／判定勝ち（する）s of the entrepreneur in 捜し出すing to maximise his
利益（をあげる）. But there may, in 新規加入, be an involuntary loss
(or 伸び（る）) in the value of his 資本／首都 器具／備品, occurring for
推論する／理由s beyond his 支配（する）／統制する and irrespective of his 現在の
決定／判定勝ち（する）s, on account of (e.g.) a change in market values,
wastage by obsolescence or the mere passage of time, or
破壊 by 大災害 such as war or 地震. Now some
part of these involuntary losses, whilst they are 避けられない,
areｾ概して speakingｾnot 予期しない; such as losses through the
lapse of time irrespective of use, and also 'normal' obsolescence
which, as Professor Pigou 表明するs it, 'is 十分に 正規の／正選手
to be foreseen, if not in 詳細（に述べる）, at least in the large',
含むing, we may 追加する, those losses to the community as a whole
which are 十分に 正規の／正選手 to be 一般的に regarded as
'insurable 危険s'. Let us ignore for the moment the fact that the
量 of the 推定する／予想するd loss depends on when the 期待 is
assumed to be でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れるd, and let us call the 価値低下 of the
器具／備品, which is involuntary but not 予期しない, i.e. the
超過 of the 推定する／予想するd 価値低下 over the 使用者 cost, the 補足の
cost, which will be written V. It is, perhaps, hardly
necessary to point out that this 鮮明度／定義 is not the same as
Marshall's 鮮明度／定義 of 補足の cost, though the
underlying idea, すなわち, of 取引，協定ing with that part of the
推定する／予想するd 価値低下 which does not enter into prime cost, is
類似の.
In reckoning, therefore, the 逮捕する income and the 逮捕する 利益（をあげる） of the entrepreneur it is usual to deduct the 概算の 量 of the 補足の cost from his income and 甚だしい／１２ダース 利益（をあげる） as defined above. For the psychological 影響 on the entrepreneur, when he is considering what he is 解放する／自由な to spend and to save, of the 補足の cost is 事実上 the same as though it （機の）カム off his 甚だしい／１２ダース 利益（をあげる）. In his capacity as a 生産者 deciding whether or not to use the 器具／備品, prime cost and 甚だしい／１２ダース 利益（をあげる）, as defined above, are the 重要な 概念s. But in his capacity as a 消費者 the 量 of the 補足の cost 作品 on his mind in the same way as if it were a part of the prime cost. Hence we shall not only come nearest to ありふれた usage but will also arrive at a 概念 which is 関連した to the 量 of 消費, if, in defining aggregate 逮捕する income, we deduct the 補足の cost 同様に as the 使用者 cost, so that aggregate 逮捕する income is equal to A - U - V.
There remains the change in the value of the 器具／備品, 予定 to unforeseen changes in market values, exceptional obsolescence or 破壊 by 大災害, which is both involuntary andｾin a 幅の広い senseｾunforeseen. The actual loss under this 長，率いる, which we 無視（する） even in reckoning 逮捕する income and 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金 to 資本／首都 account, may be called the windfall loss.
The causal significance of 逮捕する income lies in the psychological 影響（力） of the magnitude of V on the 量 of 現在の 消費, since 逮捕する income is what we suppose the ordinary man to reckon his 利用できる income to be when he is deciding how much to spend on 現在の 消費. This is not, of course, the only factor of which he takes account when he is deciding how much to spend. It makes a かなりの difference, for example, how much windfall 伸び（る） or loss he is making on 資本／首都 account. But there is a difference between the 補足の cost and a windfall loss in that changes in the former are apt to 影響する／感情 him in just the same way as changes in his 甚だしい／１２ダース 利益（をあげる）. It is the 超過 of the proceeds of the 現在の 生産（高） over the sum of the prime cost and the 補足の cost which is 関連した to the entrepreneur's 消費; 反して, although the windfall loss (or 伸び（る）) enters into his 決定／判定勝ち（する）s, it does not enter into them on the same 規模ｾa given windfall loss does not have the same 影響 as an equal 補足の cost.
We must now recur, however, to the point that the line between 補足の costs and windfall losses, i.e. between those 避けられない losses which we think it proper to debit to income account and those which it is reasonable to reckon as a windfall loss (or 伸び（る）) on 資本／首都 account, is partly a 従来の or psychological one, depending on what are the 一般的に 受託するd 基準 for 見積（る）ing the former. For no unique 原則 can be 設立するd for the estimation of 補足の cost, and its 量 will depend on our choice of an accounting method. The 推定する／予想するd value of the 補足の cost, when the 器具／備品 was 初めは produced, is a 限定された 量. But if it is re-概算の subsequently, its 量 over the 残りの人，物 of the life of the 器具／備品 may have changed as a result of a change in the 合間 in our 期待s; the windfall 資本／首都 loss 存在 the 割引d value of the difference between the former and the 改訂するd 期待 of the 見込みのある 一連の U + V. It is a 広範囲にわたって 認可するd 原則 of 商売／仕事 accounting, 是認するd by the Inland 歳入 当局, to 設立する a 人物／姿／数字 for the sum of the 補足の cost and the 使用者 cost when the 器具／備品 is acquired and to 持続する this unaltered during the life of the 器具／備品, irrespective of その後の changes in 期待. In this 事例／患者 the 補足の cost over any period must be taken as the 超過 of this predetermined 人物／姿／数字 over the actual 使用者 cost. This has the advantage of 確実にするing that the windfall 伸び（る） or loss shall be 無 over the life of the 器具／備品 taken as a whole. But it is also reasonable in 確かな circumstances to recalculate the allowance for 補足の cost on the basis of 現在の values and 期待s at an 独断的な accounting interval, e.g. 毎年. 商売／仕事 men in fact 異なる as to which course they 可決する・採択する. It may be convenient to call the 初期の 期待 of 補足の cost when the 器具／備品 is first acquired the basic 補足の cost, and the same 量 recalculated up to date on the basis of 現在の values and 期待s the 現在の 補足の cost.
Thus we cannot get closer to a quantitative 鮮明度／定義 of 補足の cost than that it 構成するs those deductions from his income which a typical entrepreneur makes before reckoning what he considers his 逮捕する income for the 目的 of 宣言するing a （株主への）配当 (in the 事例／患者 of a 会社／団体) or of deciding the 規模 of his 現在の 消費 (in the 事例／患者 of an individual). Since windfall 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金s on 資本／首都 account are not going to be 支配するd out of the picture, it is 明確に better, in 事例／患者 of 疑問, to 割り当てる an item to 資本／首都 account, and to 含む in 補足の cost only what rather 明白に belongs there. For any overloading of the former can be 訂正するd by 許すing it more 影響（力） on the 率 of 現在の 消費 than it would さもなければ have had.
It will be seen that our 鮮明度／定義 of 逮捕する income comes very
の近くに to Marshall's 鮮明度／定義 of income, when he decided to take
避難 in the practices of the Income 税金 Commissioners andｾ概して speaking to regard as income
whatever they, with their experience, choose to 扱う／治療する as such.
For the fabric of their 決定／判定勝ち（する）s can be regarded as the result
of the most careful and 広範囲にわたる 調査 which is
利用できる, to 解釈する／通訳する what, in practice, it is usual to 扱う／治療する
as 逮捕する income. It also corresponds to the money value of
Professor Pigou's most 最近の 鮮明度／定義 of the 国家の
（株主への）配当.
It remains true, however, that 逮捕する income, 存在 based on an equivocal criterion which different 当局 might 解釈する／通訳する 異なって, is not perfectly （疑いを）晴らす-削減（する）. Professor Hayek, for example, has 示唆するd that an individual owner of 資本／首都 goods might 目的（とする） at keeping the income he derives from his 所有／入手s constant, so that he would not feel himself 解放する／自由な to spend his income on 消費 until he had 始める，決める aside 十分な to 相殺する any 傾向 of his 投資-income to 拒絶する／低下する for whatever 推論する／理由. I 疑問 if such an individual 存在するs; but, 明白に, no theoretical 反対 can be raised against this deduction as 供給するing a possible psychological criterion of 逮捕する income. But when Professor Hayek infers that the 概念s of saving and 投資 を煩う a corresponding vagueness, he is only 権利 if he means 逮捕する saving and 逮捕する 投資. The saving and the 投資, which are 関連した to the theory of 雇用, are （疑いを）晴らす of this defect, and are 有能な of 客観的な 鮮明度／定義, as we have shown above.
Thus it is a mistake to put all the 強調 on 逮捕する income, which is only 関連した to 決定／判定勝ち（する）s 関心ing 消費, and is, moreover, only separated from さまざまな other factors 影響する／感情ing 消費 by a 狭くする line; and to overlook (as has been usual) the 概念 of income proper, which is the 概念 関連した to 決定／判定勝ち（する）s 関心ing 現在の 生産／産物 and is やめる unambiguous.
The above 鮮明度／定義s of income and of 逮捕する income are ーするつもりであるd
to 適合する as closely as possible to ありふれた usage. It is
necessary, therefore, that I should at once remind the reader
that in my Treatise on Money I defined income in a special
sense. The peculiarity in my former 鮮明度／定義 関係のある to that
part of aggregate income which accrues to the entrepreneurs,
since I took neither the 利益（をあげる） (whether 甚だしい／１２ダース or 逮捕する) 現実に
realised from their 現在の 操作／手術s nor the 利益（をあげる） which they
推定する／予想するd when they decided to 請け負う their 現在の 操作／手術s, but in some sense (not, as I
now think, 十分に defined if we 許す for the 可能性
of changes in the 規模 of 生産（高）) a normal or equilibrium
利益（をあげる）; with the result that on this 鮮明度／定義 saving 越えるd
投資 by the 量 of the 超過 of normal 利益（をあげる） over the
actual 利益（をあげる）. I am afraid that this use of 条件 has 原因（となる）d
かなりの 混乱, 特に in the 事例／患者 of the correlative
use of saving; since 結論s (relating, in particular, to the
超過 of saving over 投資), which were only valid if the
条件 雇うd were 解釈する／通訳するd in my special sense, have been
frequently 可決する・採択するd in popular discussion as though the 条件 were
存在 雇うd in their more familiar sense. For this 推論する／理由, and
also because I no longer 要求する my former 条件 to 表明する my
ideas 正確に, I have decided to discard themｾwith much 悔いる for the 混乱 which
they have 原因（となる）d.
II. Saving and 投資
まっただ中に the welter of 相違する usages of 条件, it is
agreeable to discover one 直す／買収する，八百長をするd point. So far as I know, everyone
is agreed that saving means the 超過 of income over
支出 on 消費. Thus any 疑問s about the meaning of
saving must arise from 疑問s about the meaning either of income
or of 消費. Income we have defined
above. 支出 on 消費 during any period must mean the
value of goods sold to 消費者s during that period, which throws
us 支援する to the question of what is meant by a 消費者-purchaser.
Any reasonable 鮮明度／定義 of the line between 消費者-purchasers
and 投資家-purchasers will serve us 平等に 井戸／弁護士席, 供給するd that
it is 終始一貫して 適用するd. Such problem as there is, e.g.
whether it is 権利 to regard the 購入（する） of a モーター-car as a
消費者-購入（する） and the 購入（する） of a house as an
投資家-購入（する）, has been frequently discussed and I have
nothing 構成要素 to 追加する to the discussion.
The criterion must 明白に correspond to where we draw the line between the 消費者 and the entrepreneur. Thus when we have defined A1 as the value of what one entrepreneur has 購入（する）d from another, we have 暗黙に settled the question. It follows that 支出 on 消費 can be unambiguously defined as S(A - A1), where A is the total sales made during the period and A1 is the total sales made by one entrepreneur to another. In what follows it will be convenient, as a 支配する, to omit and 令状 A for the aggregate sales of all 肉親，親類d, A1 for the aggregate sales from one entrepreneur to another and U for the aggregate 使用者 costs of the entrepreneurs.
Having now defined both income and 消費, the 鮮明度／定義 of saving, which is the 超過 of income over 消費, 自然に follows. Since income is equal to A - U and 消費 is equal to A - A1, it follows that saving is equal to A1 - U. 類似して, we have 逮捕する saving for the 超過 of 逮捕する income over 消費, equal to A1 - U - V.
Our 鮮明度／定義 of income also leads at once to the 鮮明度／定義 of 現在の 投資. For we must mean by this the 現在の 新規加入 to the value of the 資本／首都 器具／備品 which has resulted from the 生産力のある activity of the period. This is, 明確に, equal to what we have just defined as saving. For it is that part of the income of the period which has not passed into 消費. We have seen above that as the result of the 生産／産物 of any period entrepreneurs 結局最後にはーなる with having sold finished 生産（高） having a value A and with a 資本／首都 器具／備品 which has 苦しむd a 悪化／低下 手段d by U (or an 改良 手段d by - U where U is 消極的な) as a result of having produced and parted with A, after 許すing for 購入（する）s A1 from other entrepreneurs. During the same period finished 生産（高） having a value A - A1 will have passed into 消費. The 超過 of A - U over A - A1, すなわち A1 - U, is the 新規加入 to 資本／首都 器具／備品 as a result of the 生産力のある activities of the period and is, therefore, the 投資 of the period. 類似して A1 - U - V; which is the 逮捕する 新規加入 to 資本／首都 器具／備品, after 許すing for normal impairment in the value of 資本／首都 apart from its 存在 used and apart from windfall changes in the value of the 器具／備品 chargeable to 資本／首都 account, is the 逮捕する 投資 of the period.
Whilst, therefore, the 量 of saving is an 結果 of the
集団の／共同の behaviour of individual 消費者s and the 量 of
投資 of the 集団の／共同の behaviour of individual
entrepreneurs, these two 量s are やむを得ず equal, since
each of them is equal to the 超過 of income over 消費.
Moreover, this 結論 in no way depends on any subtleties or
peculiarities in the 鮮明度／定義 of income given above. 供給するd
it is agreed that income is equal to the value of 現在の 生産（高）,
that 現在の 投資 is equal to the value of that part of
現在の 生産（高） which is not 消費するd, and that saving is equal to
the 超過 of income over 消費ｾall
of which is conformable both to ありふれた sense and to the
伝統的な usage of the 広大な／多数の／重要な 大多数 of 経済学者sｾthe equality of saving and 投資
やむを得ず follows. In short-
Income = value of 生産（高） = 消費 + 投資.
Saving = income - 消費.
Therefore saving = 投資.
Thus any 始める，決める of 鮮明度／定義s which 満足させる the above 条件s leads to the same 結論. It is only by 否定するing the 有効性，効力 of one or other of them that the 結論 can be 避けるd.
The equivalence between the 量 of saving and the
量 of 投資 現れるs from the 二国間の／相互の character of
the 処理／取引s between the 生産者 on the one 手渡す and, on the
other 手渡す, the 消費者 or the purchaser of 資本／首都 器具／備品.
Income is created by the value in 超過 of 使用者 cost which the 生産者 得るs for the 生産（高） he has sold; but the whole of this 生産（高） must 明白に have been sold either to a 消費者 or to another entrepreneur; and each entrepreneur's 現在の 投資 is equal to the 超過 of the 器具／備品 which he has 購入（する）d from other entrepreneurs over his own 使用者 cost. Hence, in the aggregate the 超過 of income over 消費, which we call saving, cannot 異なる from the 新規加入 to 資本／首都 器具／備品 which we call 投資. And 類似して with 逮捕する saving and 逮捕する 投資. Saving, in fact, is a mere residual. The 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to 消費する and the 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to 投資する between them 決定する incomes. Assuming that the 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to 投資する become 効果的な, they must in doing so either curtail 消費 or 拡大する income. Thus the 行為／法令／行動する of 投資 in itself cannot help 原因（となる）ing the residual or 利ざや, which we call saving, to 増加する by a corresponding 量.
It might be, of course, that individuals were so t黎e mont馥 in their 決定／判定勝ち（する）s as to how much they themselves would save and 投資する それぞれ, that there would be no point of price equilibrium at which 処理／取引s could take place. In this 事例／患者 our 条件 would 中止する to be applicable, since 生産（高） would no longer have a 限定された market value, prices would find no 残り／休憩（する）ing-place between 無 and infinity. Experience shows, however, that this, in fact, is not so; and that there are habits of psychological 返答 which 許す of an equilibrium 存在 reached at which the 準備完了 to buy is equal to the 準備完了 to sell. That there should be such a thing as a market value for 生産（高） is, at the same time, a necessary 条件 for money-income to 所有する a 限定された value and a 十分な 条件 for the aggregate 量 which saving individuals decide to save to be equal to the aggregate 量 which 投資するing individuals decide to 投資する.
Clearness of mind on this 事柄 is best reached, perhaps, by thinking ーに関して／ーの点でs of 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to 消費する (or to
差し控える from 消費するing) rather than of 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to save. A
決定／判定勝ち（する） to 消費する or not to 消費する truly lies within the 力／強力にする
of the individual; so does a 決定／判定勝ち（する） to 投資する or not to 投資する.
The 量s of aggregate income and of aggregate saving are the results
of the 解放する／自由な choices of individuals whether or not to 消費する
and whether or not to 投資する; but they are neither of them
有能な of assuming an 独立した・無所属 value resulting from a
separate 始める，決める of 決定／判定勝ち（する）s taken irrespective of the 決定／判定勝ち（する）s
関心ing 消費 and 投資. In 一致 with this
原則, the conception of the propensity to 消費する will,
in what follows, take the place of the propensity or disposition
to save.
I
使用者 cost has, I think, an importance for the classical theory of value which has been overlooked. There is more to be said about it than would be 関連した or appropriate in this place. But, as a digression, we will 診察する it somewhat その上の in this 虫垂.
An entrepreneur's 使用者 cost is by 鮮明度／定義 equal to
A1 + (G' - B') - G,
where A1 is the 量 of our entrepreneur's 購入（する）s from other entrepreneurs, G the actual value of his 資本／首都 器具／備品 at the end of the period, and G' the value it might have had at the end of the period if he had 差し控えるd from using it and had spent the optimum sum B' on its 維持／整備 and 改良. Now G - (G' - B'), すなわち the increment in the value of the entrepreneur's 器具／備品 beyond the 逮捕する value which he has 相続するd from the previous period, 代表するs the entrepreneur's 現在の 投資 in his 器具／備品 and can be written I. Thus U, the 使用者 cost of his sales-turnover A, is equal to A1 - I where A1 is what he has bought from other entrepreneurs and I is what he has 現在／一般に 投資するd in his own 器具／備品. A little reflection will show that all this is no more than ありふれた sense. Some part of his 去っていく／社交的なs to other entrepreneurs is balanced by the value of his 現在の 投資 in his own 器具／備品, and the 残り／休憩（する） 代表するs the sacrifice which the 生産（高） he has sold must have cost him over and above the total sum which he has paid out to the factors of 生産／産物. If the reader tries to 表明する the 実体 of this さもなければ, he will find that its advantage lies in its avoidance of insoluble (and unnecessary) accounting problems. There is, I think, no other way of analysing the 現在の proceeds of 生産／産物 unambiguously. If 産業 is 完全に 統合するd or if the entrepreneur has bought nothing from outside, so that A1 = 0, the 使用者 cost is 簡単に the 同等（の） of the 現在の disinvestment 伴う／関わるd in using the 器具／備品; but we are still left with the advantage that we do not 要求する at any 行う／開催する／段階 of the 分析 to 配分する the factor cost between the goods which are sold and the 器具／備品 which is 保持するd. Thus we can regard the 雇用 given by a 会社／堅い, whether 統合するd or individual, as depending on a 選び出す／独身 強固にする／合併する／制圧するd 決定／判定勝ち（する）ｾa 手続き which corresponds to the actual interlocking character of the 生産／産物 of what is 現在／一般に sold with total 生産／産物.
The 概念 of 使用者 cost enables us, moreover, to give a clearer 鮮明度／定義 than that usually 可決する・採択するd of the short-period 供給（する） price of a 部隊 of a 会社／堅い's saleable 生産（高）. For the short-period 供給（する） price is the sum of the ごくわずかの factor cost and the ごくわずかの 使用者 cost.
Now in the modern theory of value it has been a usual practice to equate the short-period 供給（する） price to the ごくわずかの factor cost alone. It is obvious, however, that this is only 合法的 if ごくわずかの 使用者 cost is 無 or if 供給（する） price is 特に defined so as to be 逮捕する of ごくわずかの 使用者 cost, just as I have defined (p. 24 above) 'proceeds' and 'aggregate 供給（する） price' as 存在 逮捕する of aggregate 使用者 cost. But, 反して it may be occasionally convenient in 取引，協定ing with 生産（高） as a whole to deduct 使用者 cost, this 手続き 奪うs our 分析 of all
reality if it is habitually (and tacitly) 適用するd to the
生産（高） of a 選び出す／独身 産業 or 会社／堅い, since it 離婚s the
'供給（する） price' of an article from any ordinary sense of its
'price'; and some 混乱 may have resulted from the practice
of doing so. It seems to have been assumed that '供給（する） price'
has an obvious meaning as 適用するd to a 部隊 of the saleable
生産（高） of an individual 会社／堅い, and the 事柄 has not been みなすd
to 要求する discussion. Yet the 治療 both of what is
購入（する）d from other 会社／堅いs and of the wastage of the 会社／堅い's own
器具／備品 as a consequence of producing the ごくわずかの 生産（高）
伴う／関わるs the whole pack of perplexities which …に出席する the
鮮明度／定義 of income. For, even if we assume that the ごくわずかの
cost of 購入（する）s from other 会社／堅いs 伴う／関わるd in selling an
付加 部隊 of 生産（高） has to be deducted from the
sale-proceeds per 部隊 ーするために give us what we mean by our
会社／堅い's 供給（する） price, we still have to 許す for the ごくわずかの
disinvestment in the 会社／堅い's own 器具／備品 伴う／関わるd in producing
the ごくわずかの 生産（高）. Even if all 生産／産物 is carried on by a
完全に 統合するd 会社／堅い, it is still 非合法の to suppose
that the ごくわずかの 使用者 cost is 無, i.e. that the ごくわずかの
disinvestment in 器具／備品 予定 to the 生産／産物 of the ごくわずかの
生産（高） can 一般に be neglected.
The 概念s of 使用者 cost and of 補足の cost also enable us to 設立する a clearer 関係 between long-period 供給（する） price and short-period 供給（する） price. Long-period cost must 明白に 含む an 量 to cover the basic 補足の cost 同様に as the 推定する／予想するd prime cost 適切な 普通の／平均（する）d over the life of the 器具／備品. That is to say, the long-period cost of the 生産（高） is equal to the 推定する／予想するd sum of the prime cost and the 補足の cost; and, その上に, ーするために 産する／生じる a normal 利益（をあげる）, the long-period 供給（する） price must 越える the long-period cost thus calculated by an 量 決定するd by the 現在の 率 of 利益／興味 on 貸付金s of 類似の 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 and 危険, reckoned as a 百分率 of the cost of the 器具／備品. Or if we prefer to take a 基準 'pure' 率 of 利益／興味, we must 含む in the long-period cost a third 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 which we might call the 危険-cost to cover the unknown 可能性s of the actual 産する／生じる 異なるing from the 推定する／予想するd 産する／生じる. Thus the long-period 供給（する） price is equal to the sum of the prime cost, the 補足の cost, the 危険 cost and the 利益／興味 cost, into which several 構成要素s it can be analysed. The short-period 供給（する） price, on the other 手渡す, is equal to the ごくわずかの prime cost. The entrepreneur must, therefore, 推定する／予想する, when he buys or 建設するs his 器具／備品, to cover his 補足の cost, his 危険 cost and his 利益／興味 cost out of the 超過 of the ごくわずかの value of the prime cost over its 普通の／平均（する） value; so that in long-period equilibrium the 超過 of the ごくわずかの prime cost over the 普通の／平均（する） prime cost is equal to the sum of the 補足の, 危険 and 利益／興味 costs.
The level of 生産（高）, at which ごくわずかの prime cost is 正確に／まさに equal to the sum of the 普通の／平均（する） prime and 補足の costs, has a special importance, because it is the point at which the entrepreneur's 貿易（する）ing account breaks even. It corresponds, that is to say, to the point of 無 逮捕する 利益（をあげる）; whilst with a smaller 生産（高） than this he is 貿易（する）ing at a 逮捕する loss.
The extent to which the 補足の cost has to be 供給するd for apart from the prime cost 変化させるs very much from one type of 器具／備品 to another. Two extreme 事例／患者s are the に引き続いて:
(i) Some part of the 維持／整備 of the 器具／備品 must やむを得ず take place pari passu with the 行為／法令／行動する of using it (e.g. oiling the machine). The expense of this (apart from outside 購入（する）s) is 含むd in the factor cost. If, for physical 推論する／理由s, the exact 量 of the whole of the 現在の 価値低下 has やむを得ず to be made good in this way, the 量 of the 使用者 cost (apart from outside 購入（する）s) would be equal and opposite to that of the 補足の cost; and in long-period equilibrium the ごくわずかの factor cost would 越える the 普通の／平均（する） factor cost by an 量 equal to the 危険 and 利益／興味 cost.
(ii) Some part of the 悪化／低下 in the value of the 器具／備品 only occurs if it is used. The cost of this is 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金d in 使用者 cost, in so far as it is not made good pari passu with the 行為／法令／行動する of using it. If loss in the value of the 器具／備品 could only occur in this way, 補足の cost would be 無.
It may be 価値（がある） pointing out that an entrepreneur does not use
his oldest and worst 器具／備品 first, 単に because its 使用者
cost is low; since its low 使用者 cost may be outweighed by its
親族 inefficiency, i.e. by its high factor cost. Thus an
entrepreneur uses by preference that part of his 器具／備品 for
which the 使用者 cost 加える factor cost is least per 部隊 of
生産（高）.
It follows that for any given 容積／容量 of 生産（高） of the 製品 in
question there is a corresponding 使用者 cost,
but that this total 使用者 cost does not 耐える a uniform relation to
the ごくわずかの 使用者 cost, i.e. to the increment of 使用者 cost 予定 to
an increment in the 率 of 生産（高）.
II
使用者 cost 構成するs one of the links between the 現在の and the 未来. For in deciding his 規模 of 生産／産物 an entrepreneur has to 演習 a choice between using up his 器具／備品 now and 保存するing it to be used later on. It is the 推定する／予想するd sacrifice of 未来 利益 伴う／関わるd in 現在の use which 決定するs the 量 of the 使用者 cost, and it is the ごくわずかの 量 of this sacrifice which, together with the ごくわずかの factor cost and the 期待 of the ごくわずかの proceeds, 決定するs his 規模 of 生産／産物. How, then, is the 使用者 cost of an 行為／法令／行動する of 生産／産物 calculated by the entrepreneur?
We have defined the 使用者 cost as the 削減 in the value of the 器具／備品 予定 to using it as compared with not using it, after 許すing for the cost of the 維持／整備 and 改良s which it would be 価値（がある） while to 請け負う and for 購入（する）s from other entrepreneurs. It must be arrived at, therefore, by calculating the 割引d value of the 付加 見込みのある 産する／生じる which would be 得るd at some later date if it were not used now. Now this must be at least equal to the 現在の value of the 適切な時期 to 延期する 交替／補充 which will result from laying up the 器具／備品; and it may be more.
If there is no 黒字／過剰 or redundant 在庫／株, so that more 部隊s of 類似の 器具／備品 are 存在 newly produced every year either as an 新規加入 or in 交替／補充, it is evident that ごくわずかの 使用者 cost will be calculable by 言及／関連 to the 量 by which the life or efficiency of the 器具／備品 will be 縮めるd if it is used, and the 現在の 交替／補充 cost. If, however, there is redundant 器具／備品, then the 使用者 cost will also depend on the 率 of 利益／興味 and the 現在の (i.e. re-概算の) 補足の cost over the period of time before the redundancy is 推定する／予想するd to be 吸収するd through wastage, etc. In this way 利益／興味 cost and 現在の 補足の cost enter 間接に into the 計算／見積り of 使用者 cost.
The 計算／見積り is 展示（する）d in its simplest and most intelligible form when the factor cost is 無, e.g. in the 事例／患者 of a redundant 在庫／株 of a raw 構成要素 such as 巡査, on the lines which I have worked out in my Treatise on Money, vol. ii. chap. 29. Let us take the 見込みのある values of 巡査 at さまざまな 未来 dates, a series which will be 治める／統治するd by the 率 at which redundancy is 存在 吸収するd and 徐々に approaches the 概算の normal cost. The 現在の value or 使用者 cost of a トン of 黒字／過剰 巡査 will then be equal to the greatest of the values obtainable by subtracting from the 概算の 未来 value at any given date of a トン of 巡査 the 利益／興味 cost and the 現在の 補足の cost on a トン of 巡査 between that date and the 現在の.
In the same way the 使用者 cost of a ship or factory or machine, when these 器具／備品s are in redundant 供給（する）, is its 概算の 交替／補充 cost 割引d at the 百分率 率 of its 利益／興味 and 現在の 補足の costs to the 見込みのある date of absorption of the redundancy.
We have assumed above that the 器具／備品 will be 取って代わるd in
予定 course by an 同一の article. If the 器具／備品 in question
will not be 新たにするd identically when it is worn out, then its
使用者 cost has to be calculated by taking a 割合 of the 使用者
cost of the new 器具／備品, which will be 築くd to do its work
when it is discarded, given by its comparative efficiency.
III
The reader should notice that, where the 器具／備品 is not obsolescent but 単に redundant for the time 存在, the difference between the actual 使用者 cost and its normal value (i.e. the value when there is no redundant 器具／備品) 変化させるs with the interval of time which is 推定する／予想するd to elapse before the redundancy is 吸収するd. Thus if the type of 器具／備品 in question is of all ages and not 'bunched', so that a fair 割合 is reaching the end of its life 毎年, the ごくわずかの 使用者 cost will not 拒絶する／低下する 大いに unless the redundancy is exceptionally 過度の. In the 事例／患者 of a general 低迷, ごくわずかの 使用者 cost will depend on how long entrepreneurs 推定する／予想する the 低迷 to last. Thus the rise in the 供給（する） price when 事件／事情／状勢s begin to mend may be partly 予定 to a sharp 増加する in ごくわずかの 使用者 cost 予定 to a 改正 of their 期待s.
It has いつかs been argued, contrary to the opinion of
商売／仕事 men, that organised 計画／陰謀s for scrapping redundant
工場／植物 cannot have the 願望（する）d 影響 of raising prices unless
they 適用する to the whole of the redundant 工場／植物. But the
概念 of 使用者 cost shows how the scrapping of (say) half the
redundant 工場／植物 may have the 影響 of raising prices
すぐに. For by bringing the date of the absorption of the
redundancy nearer, this 政策 raises ごくわずかの 使用者 cost and
その結果 増加するs the 現在の 供給（する） price. Thus 商売／仕事
men would seem to have the notion of 使用者 cost 暗黙に in
mind, though they do not 明確に表す it distinctly. If the
補足の cost is 激しい, it follows that the ごくわずかの 使用者
cost will be low when there is 黒字／過剰 器具／備品. Moreover, when there is 黒字／過剰 器具／備品, the ごくわずかの factor and 使用者
costs are ありそうもない to be much in 超過 of their 普通の／平均（する） value.
If both these 条件s are 実行するd, the 存在 of 黒字／過剰
器具／備品 is likely to lead to the entrepreneur's working at a
逮捕する loss, and perhaps at a 激しい 逮捕する loss. There will not be a
sudden 移行 from this 明言する／公表する of 事件／事情／状勢s to a normal 利益（をあげる）,
taking place at the moment when the redundancy is 吸収するd. As
the redundancy becomes いっそう少なく, the 使用者 cost will 徐々に
増加する; and the 超過 of ごくわずかの over 普通の／平均（する） factor and 使用者
cost may also 徐々に 増加する.
IV
In Marshall's 原則s of 経済的なs (6th ed. p.360) a part of 使用者 cost is 含むd in prime cost under the 長，率いるing of 'extra wear-and-涙／ほころび of 工場／植物'. But no 指導／手引 is given as to how this item is to be calculated or as to its importance. In his Theory of 失業 (p.42) Professor Pigou expressly assumes that the ごくわずかの disinvestment in 器具／備品 予定 to the ごくわずかの 生産（高） can, in general, be neglected: 'The differences in the 量 of wear-and-涙／ほころび 苦しむd by 器具／備品 and in the costs of 非，不，無-手動式の 労働 雇うd, that are associated with differences in 生産（高）, are ignored, as 存在, in general, of 第２位 importance'. Indeed, the notion that the disinvestment in 器具／備品 is 無 at the 利ざや of 生産／産物 runs through a good 取引，協定 of 最近の 経済的な theory. But the whole problem is brought to an obvious 長，率いる as soon as it is thought necessary to explain 正確に／まさに what is meant by the 供給（する） price of an individual 会社／堅い.
It is true that the cost of 維持／整備 of idle 工場／植物 may often, for the 推論する／理由s given above, 減ずる the magnitude of ごくわずかの 使用者 cost, 特に in a 低迷 which is 推定する／予想するd to last a long time. にもかかわらず a very low 使用者 cost at the 利ざや is not a characteristic of the short period as such, but of particular 状況／情勢s and types of 器具／備品 where the cost of 持続するing idle 工場／植物 happens to be 激しい, and of those disequilibria which are characterised by very 早い obsolescence or 広大な／多数の／重要な redundancy, 特に if it is coupled with a large 割合 of comparatively new 工場／植物.
In the 事例／患者 of raw 構成要素s the necessity of 許すing for 使用者 cost is obvious;ｾif a トン of 巡査 is used up to-day it cannot be used to-morrow, and the value which the 巡査 would have for the 目的s of to-morrow must 明確に he reckoned as a part of the ごくわずかの cost. But the fact has been overlooked that 巡査 is only an extreme 事例／患者 of what occurs whenever 資本／首都 器具／備品 is used to produce. The 仮定／引き受けること that there is a sharp 分割 between raw 構成要素s where we must 許す for the disinvestment 予定 to using them and 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 資本／首都 where we can 安全に neglect it does not correspond to the facts;ｾ特に in normal 条件s where 器具／備品 is 落ちるing 予定 for 交替／補充 every year and the use of 器具／備品 brings nearer the date at which 交替／補充 is necessary.
It is an advantage of the 概念s of 使用者 cost and
補足の cost that they are as applicable to working and
liquid 資本／首都 as to 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 資本／首都. The 必須の difference
between raw 構成要素s and 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 資本／首都 lies not in their
義務／負債 to 使用者 and 補足の costs, but in the fact that
the return to liquid 資本／首都 consists of a 選び出す／独身 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語; 反して
in the 事例／患者 of 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 資本／首都, which is 持続する and used up
徐々に, the return consists of a 一連の 使用者 costs and
利益（をあげる）s earned in 連続する periods.
一時期／支部 7
I
In the previous 一時期／支部 saving and 投資 have been so defined that they are やむを得ず equal in 量, 存在, for the community as a whole, 単に different 面s of the same thing. Several 同時代の writers (含むing myself in my Treatise on Money) have, however, given special 鮮明度／定義s of these 条件 on which they are not やむを得ず equal. Others have written on the 仮定／引き受けること that they may be unequal without prefacing their discussion with any 鮮明度／定義s at all. It will be useful, therefore, with a 見解（をとる） to relating the foregoing to other discussions of these 条件, to 分類する some of the さまざまな uses of them which appear to be 現在の.
So far as I know, everyone agrees in meaning by saving the
超過 of income over what is spent on 消費. It would
certainly be very inconvenient and 誤って導くing not to mean this.
Nor is there any important difference of opinion as to what is
meant by 支出 on 消費. Thus the differences of
usage arise either out of the 鮮明度／定義 of 投資 or out of
that of income.
II
Let us take 投資 first. In popular usage it is ありふれた to mean by this the 購入（する） of an 資産, old or new, by an individual or a 会社／団体. Occasionally, the 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 might be 制限するd to the 購入（する） of an 資産 on the 在庫／株 交流. But we speak just as readily of 投資するing, for example, in a house, or in a machine, or in a 在庫／株 of finished or unfinished goods; and, 概して speaking, new 投資, as distinguished from reinvestment, means the 購入（する） of a 資本／首都 資産 of any 肉親，親類d out of income. If we reckon the sale of an 投資 as 存在 消極的な 投資, i.e. disinvestment, my own 鮮明度／定義 is in 一致 with popular usage; since 交流s of old 投資s やむを得ず 取り消す out. We have, indeed, to adjust for the 創造 and 発射する／解雇する of 負債s (含むing changes in the 量 of credit or money); but since for the community as a whole the 増加する or 減少（する） of the aggregate creditor position is always 正確に／まさに equal to the 増加する or 減少（する） of the aggregate debtor position, this 複雑化 also 取り消すs out when we are 取引，協定ing with aggregate 投資. Thus, assuming that income in the popular sense corresponds to my 逮捕する income, aggregate 投資 in the popular sense 同時に起こる／一致するs with my 鮮明度／定義 of 逮捕する 投資, すなわち the 逮捕する 新規加入 to all 肉親，親類d of 資本／首都 器具／備品, after 許すing for those changes in the value of the old 資本／首都 器具／備品 which are taken into account in reckoning 逮捕する income.
投資, thus defined, 含むs, therefore, the increment of 資本／首都 器具／備品, whether it consists of 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 資本／首都, working 資本／首都 or liquid 資本／首都; and the 重要な differences of 鮮明度／定義 (apart from the distinction between 投資 and 逮捕する 投資) are 予定 to the 除外 from 投資 of one or more of these 部類s.
Mr Hawtrey, for example, who 大（公）使館員s 広大な／多数の／重要な importance to changes in liquid 資本／首都, i.e. to undesigned increments (or decrements) in the 在庫／株 of unsold goods, has 示唆するd a possible 鮮明度／定義 of 投資 from which such changes are 除外するd. In this 事例／患者 an 超過 of saving over 投資 would be the same thing as an undesigned increment in the 在庫／株 of unsold goods, i.e. as an 増加する of liquid 資本／首都. Mr Hawtrey has not 納得させるd me that this is the factor to 強調する／ストレス; for it lays all the 強調 on the 是正 of changes which were in the first instance unforeseen, as compared with those which are, rightly or wrongly, 心配するd. Mr Hawtrey regards the daily 決定／判定勝ち（する）s of entrepreneurs 関心ing their 規模 of 生産（高） as 存在 変化させるd from the 規模 of the previous day by 言及／関連 to the changes in their 在庫／株 of unsold goods. Certainly, in the 事例／患者 of 消費 goods, this plays an important part in their 決定／判定勝ち（する）s. But I see no 反対する in 除外するing the play of other factors on their 決定／判定勝ち（する）s; and I prefer, therefore, to 強調 the total change of 効果的な 需要・要求する and not 単に that part of the change in 効果的な 需要・要求する which 反映するs the 増加する or 減少（する） of unsold 在庫／株s in the previous period. Moreover, in the 事例／患者 of 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 資本／首都, the 増加する or 減少（する） of 未使用の capacity corresponds to the 増加する or 減少（する） in unsold 在庫／株s in its 影響 on 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to produce; and I do not see how Mr Hawtrey's method can 扱う this at least 平等に important factor.
It seems probable that 資本／首都 形式 and 資本／首都
消費, as used by the Austrian school of 経済学者s, are
not 同一の either with 投資 and disinvestment as defined
above or with 逮捕する 投資 and disinvestment. In particular,
資本／首都 消費 is said to occur in circumstances where there
is やめる 明確に no 逮捕する 減少（する） in 資本／首都 器具／備品 as defined
above. I have, however, been unable to discover a 言及／関連 to
any passage where the meaning of these 条件 is 明確に
explained. The 声明, for example, that 資本／首都 形式
occurs when there is a lengthening of the period of 生産／産物
does not much 前進する 事柄s.
We come next to the 相違s between saving and 投資 which are 予定 to a special 鮮明度／定義 of income and hence of the 超過 of income over 消費. My own use of 条件 in my Treatise on Money is an example of this. For, as I have explained on p. 60 above, the 鮮明度／定義 of income, which I there 雇うd, 異なるd from my 現在の 鮮明度／定義 by reckoning as the income of entrepreneurs not their 現実に realised 利益（をあげる）s but (in some sense) their 'normal 利益（をあげる）'. Thus by an 超過 of saving over 投資 I meant that the 規模 of 生産（高） was such that entrepreneurs were 収入 a いっそう少なく than normal 利益（をあげる） from their 所有権 of the 資本／首都 器具／備品; and by an 増加するd 超過 of saving over 投資 I meant that a 拒絶する／低下する was taking place in the actual 利益（をあげる）s, so that they would be under a 動機 to 契約 生産（高）.
As I now think, the 容積／容量 of 雇用 (and その結果 of 生産（高） and real income) is 直す／買収する，八百長をするd by the entrepreneur under the 動機 of 捜し出すing to maximise his 現在の and 見込みのある 利益（をあげる）s (the allowance for 使用者 cost 存在 決定するd by his 見解（をとる） as to the use of 器具／備品 which will maximise his return from it over its whole life); whilst the 容積／容量 of 雇用 which will maximise his 利益（をあげる） depends on the aggregate 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 given by his 期待s of the sum of the proceeds resulting from 消費 and 投資 それぞれ on さまざまな hypotheses. In my Treatise on Money the 概念 of changes in the 超過 of 投資 over saving, as there defined, was a way of 扱うing changes in 利益（をあげる）, though I did not in that 調書をとる／予約する distinguish 明確に between 推定する／予想するd and realised results. I there argued that change in the 超過 of 投資 over saving was the 動機 軍隊 治める／統治するing changes in the 容積／容量 of 生産（高）. Thus the new argument, though (as I now think) much more 正確な and instructive, is essentially a 開発 of the old. 表明するd in the language of my Treatise on Money, it would run: the 期待 of an 増加するd 超過 of 投資 over saving, given the former 容積／容量 of 雇用 and 生産（高）, will induce entrepreneurs to 増加する the 容積／容量 of 雇用 and 生産（高）. The significance of both my 現在の and my former arguments lies in their 試みる／企てる to show that the 容積／容量 of 雇用 is 決定するd by the 見積（る）s of 効果的な 需要・要求する made by the entrepreneurs, an 推定する／予想するd 増加する of 投資 比較して to saving as defined in my Treatise on Money 存在 a criterion of an 増加する in 効果的な 需要・要求する. But the 解説，博覧会 in my Treatise on Money is, of course, very 混乱させるing and incomplete in the light of the その上の 開発s here 始める，決める 前へ／外へ.
Mr D. H. Robertson has defined to-day's income as 存在 equal
to yesterday's 消費 加える 投資, so that
to-day's saving, in his sense, is equal to yesterday's 投資
加える the 超過 of yesterday's 消費 over to-day's
消費. On this 鮮明度／定義 saving can 越える 投資,
すなわち, by the 超過 of yesterday's income (in my sense) over
to-day's income. Thus when Mr Robertson says that there is an
超過 of saving over 投資, he means literally the same
thing as I mean when I say that income is 落ちるing, and the 超過
of saving in his sense is 正確に／まさに equal to the 拒絶する／低下する of income
in my sense. If it were true that 現在の 期待s were
always 決定するd by yesterday's realised results, to-day's
効果的な 需要・要求する would be equal to yesterday's income. Thus Mr
Robertson's method might be regarded as an 代案／選択肢. 試みる／企てる
to 地雷 (存在, perhaps, a first approximation to it) to make the
same distinction, so 決定的な for causal 分析, that I have tried
to make by the contrast between 効果的な 需要・要求する and
income.
IV
We come next to the much vaguer ideas associated with the phrase '軍隊d saving'. Is any （疑いを）晴らす significance discoverable in these? In my Treatise on Money (vol.1, p. 171, footnote [JMK, vol. V, p.154] I gave some 言及／関連s to earlier uses of this phrase and 示唆するd that they bore some affinity to the difference between 投資 and 'saving' in the sense in which I there used the latter 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語. I am no longer 確信して that there was in fact so much affinity as I then supposed. In any 事例／患者, I feel sure that '軍隊d saving' and analogous phrases 雇うd more recently (e.g. by Professor Hayek or Professor Robbins) have no 限定された relation to the difference between 投資 and 'saving' in the sense ーするつもりであるd in my Treatise on Money. For whilst these authors have not explained 正確に／まさに what they mean by this 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語, it is （疑いを）晴らす that '軍隊d saving', in their sense, is a 現象 which results 直接／まっすぐに from, and is 手段d by, changes in the 量 of money or bank-credit.
It is evident that a change in the 容積／容量 of 生産（高） and 雇用 will, indeed, 原因（となる） a change in income 手段d in 行う-部隊s; that a change in the 行う-部隊 will 原因（となる） both a 議席数是正 of income between borrowers and 貸す人s and a change in aggregate income 手段d in money; and that in either event there will (or may) be a change in the 量 saved. Since, therefore, changes in the 量 of money may result, through their 影響 on the 率 of 利益／興味, in a change in the 容積／容量 and 配当 of income (as we shall show later), such changes may 伴う／関わる, 間接に, a change in the 量 saved. But such changes in the 量s saved are no more '軍隊d 貯金' than any other changes in the 量s saved 予定 to a change in circumstances; and there is no means of distinguishing between one 事例／患者 and another, unless we 明示する the 量 saved in 確かな given 条件s as our norm or 基準. Moreover, as we shall see, the 量 of the change in aggregate saving which results from a given change in the 量 of money is 高度に variable and depends on many other factors.
Thus '軍隊d saving' has no meaning until we have 明示するd some 基準 率 of saving. If we select (as might be reasonable) the 率 of saving which corresponds to an 設立するd 明言する／公表する of 十分な 雇用, the above 鮮明度／定義 would become: '軍隊d saving is the 超過 of actual saving over what would be saved if there were 十分な 雇用 in a position of long-period equilibrium'. This 鮮明度／定義 would make good sense, but a sense in which a 軍隊d 超過 of saving would be a very rare and a very 安定性のない 現象, and a 軍隊d 欠陥／不足 of saving the usual 明言する／公表する of 事件／事情／状勢s.
Professor Hayek's 利益／興味ing '公式文書，認める on the 開発 of the
Doctrine of 軍隊d Saving'
shows that this was in fact the 初めの meaning of the 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語.
'軍隊d saving' or '軍隊d frugality' was, in the first instance,
a conception of Bentham's; and Bentham expressly 明言する／公表するd that he
had in mind the consequences of an 増加する in the 量 of
money (比較して to the 量 of things vendible for money)
in circumstances of 'all 手渡すs 存在 雇うd and 雇うd in the
most advantageous manner'.
In such circumstances, Bentham points out, real income cannot be
増加するd, and, その結果, 付加 投資, taking place
as a result of the 移行, 伴う／関わるs 軍隊d frugality 'at the
expense of 国家の 慰安 and 国家の 司法（官）'. All the
nineteenth-century writers who dealt with this 事柄 had 事実上 the same idea
in mind. But an 試みる／企てる to 延長する this perfectly （疑いを）晴らす notion to
条件s of いっそう少なく than 十分な 雇用 伴う／関わるs difficulties. It
is true, of course (借りがあるing to the fact of 減らすing returns to
an 増加する in the 雇用 適用するd to a given 資本／首都
器具／備品), that any 増加する in 雇用 伴う／関わるs some
sacrifice of real income to those who were already 雇うd, but
an 試みる／企てる to relate this loss to the 増加する in 投資
which may …を伴って the 増加する in 雇用 is not likely to
be 実りの多い／有益な. At any 率 I am not aware of any 試みる／企てる having
been made by the modern writers who are 利益／興味d in '軍隊d
saving' to 延長する the idea to 条件s where 雇用 is
増加するing; and they seem, as a 支配する, to overlook the fact that
the 拡張 of the Benthamite 概念 of 軍隊d frugality to
条件s of いっそう少なく than 十分な 雇用 要求するs some explanation
or 資格.
V
The prevalence of the idea that saving and 投資, taken in their straightforward sense, can 異なる from one another, is to be explained, I think, by an 光学の illusion 予定 to regarding an individual depositor's relation to his bank as 存在 a one-味方するd 処理／取引, instead of seeing it as the two-味方するd 処理／取引 which it 現実に is. It is supposed that a depositor and his bank can somehow contrive between them to 成し遂げる an 操作／手術 by which 貯金 can disappear into the banking system so that they are lost to 投資, or, contrariwise, that the banking system can make it possible for 投資 to occur, to which no saving corresponds. But no one can save without acquiring an 資産, whether it be cash or a 負債 or 資本／首都-goods; and no one can acquire an 資産 which he did not 以前 所有する, unless either an 資産 of equal value is newly produced or someone else parts with an 資産 of that value which he 以前 had. In the first 代案／選択肢 there is a corresponding new 投資: in the second 代案／選択肢 someone else must be dis-saving an equal sum. For his loss of wealth must be 予定 to his 消費 越えるing his income, and not to a loss on 資本／首都 account through a change in the value of a 資本／首都-資産, since it is not a 事例／患者 of his 苦しむing a loss of value which his 資産 以前は had; he is duly receiving the 現在の value of his 資産 and yet is not 保持するing this value in wealth of any form, i.e. he must be spending it on 現在の 消費 in 超過 of 現在の income. Moreover, if it is the banking system which parts with an 資産, someone must be parting with cash. It follows that the aggregate saving of the first individual and of others taken together must やむを得ず be equal to the 量 of 現在の new 投資.
The notion that the 創造 of credit by the banking system 許すs 投資 to take place to which 'no 本物の saving' corresponds can only be the result of 孤立するing one of the consequences of the 増加するd bank-credit to the 除外 of the others. If the 認める of a bank credit to an entrepreneur 付加 to the credits already 存在するing 許すs him to make an 新規加入 to 現在の 投資 which would not have occurred さもなければ, incomes will やむを得ず be 増加するd and at a 率 which will 普通は 越える the 率 of 増加するd 投資. Moreover, except in 条件s of 十分な 雇用, there will be an 増加する of real income 同様に as of money-income. The public will 演習 'a 解放する／自由な choice' as to the 割合 in which they divide their 増加する of income between saving and spending; and it is impossible that the 意向 of the entrepreneur who has borrowed ーするために 増加する 投資 can become 効果的な (except in substitution for 投資 by other entrepreneurs which would have occurred さもなければ) at a faster 率 than the public decide to 増加する their 貯金. Moreover, the 貯金 which result from this 決定／判定勝ち（する） are just as 本物の as any other 貯金. No one can be compelled to own the 付加 money corresponding to the new bank-credit, unless he deliberately prefers to 持つ／拘留する more money rather than some other form of wealth. Yet 雇用, incomes and prices cannot help moving in such a way that in the new 状況／情勢 someone does choose to 持つ／拘留する the 付加 money. It is true that an 予期しない 増加する of 投資 in a particular direction may 原因（となる） an 不正行為 in the 率 of aggregate saving and 投資 which would not have occurred if it had been 十分に foreseen. It is also true that the 認める of the bank-credit will 始める，決める up three 傾向sｾ(1) for 生産（高） to 増加する, (2) for the ごくわずかの 製品 to rise in value ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 行う-部隊 (which in 条件s of 減少（する）ing return must やむを得ず …を伴って an 増加する of 生産（高）), and (3) for the 行う-部隊 to rise ーに関して／ーの点でs of money (since this is a たびたび（訪れる） concomitant of better 雇用); and these 傾向s may 影響する／感情 the 配当 of real income between different groups. But these 傾向s are characteristic of a 明言する／公表する of 増加するing 生産（高） as such, and will occur just as much if the 増加する in 生産（高） has been 始めるd さもなければ than by an 増加する in bank-credit. They can only be 避けるd by 避けるing any course of 活動／戦闘 有能な of 改善するing 雇用. Much of the above, however, is 心配するing the result of discussions which have not yet been reached.
Thus the old-fashioned 見解（をとる） that saving always 伴う／関わるs 投資, though incomplete and 誤って導くing, is 正式に sounder than the new-fangled 見解（をとる） that there can be saving without 投資 or 投資 without '本物の' saving. The error lies in 訴訟／進行 to the plausible inference that, when an individual saves, he will 増加する aggregate 投資 by an equal 量. It is true, that, when an individual saves he 増加するs his own wealth. But the 結論 that he also 増加するs aggregate wealth fails to 許す for the 可能性 that an 行為／法令／行動する of individual saving may 反応する on someone else's 貯金 and hence on someone else's wealth.
The 仲直り of the 身元 between saving and 投資 with the 明らかな '解放する／自由な-will' of the individual to save what he chooses irrespective of what he or others may be 投資するing, essentially depends on saving 存在, like spending, a two-味方するd 事件／事情／状勢. For although the 量 of his own saving is ありそうもない to have any 重要な 影響（力） on his own income, the reactions of the 量 of his 消費 on the incomes of others makes it impossible for all individuals 同時に to save any given sums. Every such 試みる／企てる to save more by 減ずるing 消費 will so 影響する／感情 incomes that the 試みる／企てる やむを得ず 敗北・負かすs itself. It is, of course, just as impossible for the community as a whole to save いっそう少なく than the 量 of 現在の 投資, since the 試みる／企てる to do so will やむを得ず raise incomes to a level at which the sums which individuals choose to save 追加する up to a 人物／姿／数字 正確に／まさに equal to the 量 of 投資.
The above is closely analogous with the proposition which harmonises the liberty, which every individual 所有するs, to change, whenever he chooses, the 量 of money he 持つ／拘留するs, with the necessity for the total 量 of money, which individual balances 追加する up to, to be 正確に／まさに equal to the 量 of cash which the banking system has created. In this latter 事例／患者 the equality is brought about by the fact that the 量 of money which people choose to 持つ／拘留する is not 独立した・無所属 of their incomes or of the prices of the things (まず第一に／本来 安全s), the 購入（する） of which is the natural 代案／選択肢 to 持つ／拘留するing money. Thus incomes and such prices やむを得ず change until the aggregate of the 量s of money which individuals choose to 持つ／拘留する at the new level of incomes and prices thus brought about has come to equality with the 量 of money created by the banking system. This, indeed, is the 根底となる proposition of 通貨の theory.
Both these propositions follow 単に from the fact that there
cannot be a 買い手 without a 販売人 or a 販売人 without a 買い手.
Though an individual whose 処理／取引s are small in relation to
the market can 安全に neglect the fact that 需要・要求する is not a
one-味方するd 処理／取引, it makes nonsense to neglect it when we
come to aggregate 需要・要求する. This is the 決定的な difference between
the theory of the 経済的な behaviour of the aggregate and the
theory of the behaviour of the individual 部隊, in which we
assume that changes in the individual's own 需要・要求する do not 影響する／感情
his income.
一時期／支部 8
I. THE OBJECTIVE FACTORS
I
We are now in a position to return to our main 主題, from which we broke off at the end of 調書をとる／予約する I ーするために を取り引きする 確かな general problems of method and 鮮明度／定義. The ultimate 反対する of our 分析 is to discover what 決定するs the 容積／容量 of 雇用. So far we have 設立するd the 予選 結論 that the 容積／容量 of 雇用 is 決定するd by the point of 交差点 of the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事 with the aggregate 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事. The aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事, however, which depends in the main on the physical 条件s of 供給（する）, 伴う／関わるs few considerations which are not already familiar. The form may be unfamiliar but the underlying factors are not new. We shall return to the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事 in 一時期／支部 20, where we discuss its inverse under the 指名する of the 雇用 機能（する）／行事. But, in the main, it is the part played by the aggregate 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 which has been overlooked; and it is to the aggregate 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 that we shall 充てる 調書をとる／予約するs III and IV.
The aggregate 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 relates any given level of 雇用 to the 'proceeds' which that level of 雇用 is 推定する／予想するd to realise. The 'proceeds' are made up of the sum of two 量sｾthe sum which will be spent on 消費 when 雇用 is at the given level, and the sum which will be 充てるd to 投資. The factors which 治める／統治する these two 量s are 大部分は 際立った. In this 調書をとる／予約する we shall consider the former, すなわち what factors 決定する the sum which will be spent on 消費 when 雇用 is at a given level; and in 調書をとる／予約する IV we shall proceed to the factors which 決定する the sum which will be 充てるd to 投資.
Since we are here 関心d in 決定するing what sum will be
spent on 消費 when 雇用 is at a given level, we
should, 厳密に speaking, consider the 機能（する）／行事 which relates
the former 量 (C) to the latter (N). It is
more convenient, however, to work ーに関して／ーの点でs of a わずかに
different 機能（する）／行事, すなわち, the 機能（する）／行事 which relates the
消費 ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s (Cw)
to the income ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s (Yw)
corresponding to a level of 雇用 N. This 苦しむs
from the 反対 that Yw is not a
unique 機能（する）／行事 of N, which is the same in all
circumstances. For the 関係 between Yw
and N may depend (though probably in a very minor degree)
on the 正確な nature of the 雇用. That is to say, two
different 配当s of a given aggregate 雇用 N between
different 雇用s might (借りがあるing to the different 形態／調整s of the
individual 雇用 機能（する）／行事sｾa
事柄 to be discussed in 一時期／支部 20 below) lead to different
values of Yw. In 考えられる
circumstances a special allowance might have to be made for this
factor. But in general it is a good approximation to regard Yw
as uniquely 決定するd by N. We will therefore define what
we shall call the propensity to 消費する as the 機能の
関係 between Yw a given level of
income ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s, and Cw
the 支出 on 消費 out of that level of income, so
that
Cw = (Yw) or C = W (Yw).
The 量 that the community spends on 消費 明白に
depends (i) partly on the 量 of its income, (ii) partly on the other 客観的な attendant
circumstances, and (iii) partly on the subjective needs and the
psychological propensities and habits of the individuals
composing it and the 原則s on which the income is divided
between them (which may 苦しむ modification as 生産（高） is
増加するd). The 動機s to spending interact and the 試みる／企てる to
分類する them runs the danger of 誤った 分割. にもかかわらず it
will （疑いを）晴らす our minds to consider them 分かれて under two 幅の広い
長，率いるs which we shall call the subjective factors and the
客観的な factors. The subjective factors, which we shall
consider in more 詳細（に述べる） in the next 一時期／支部, 含む those
psychological 特徴 of human nature and those social
practices and 会・原則s which, though not unalterable, are
ありそうもない to を受ける a 構成要素 change over a short period of time
except in 異常な or 革命の circumstances. In an
historical enquiry or in comparing one social system with another
of a different type, it is necessary to take account of the
manner in which changes in the subjective factors may 影響する／感情 the
propensity to 消費する. But, in general, we shall in what follows
take the subjective factors as given; and we shall assume that
the propensity to 消費する depends only on changes in the
客観的な factors.
II
The 主要な／長／主犯 客観的な factors which 影響（力） the propensity to 消費する appear to be the に引き続いて:
(1) A change in the 行う-部隊. 消費 (C) is 明白に much more a 機能（する）／行事 of (in some sense) real income than of money-income. In a given 明言する／公表する of technique and tastes and of social 条件s 決定するing the 配当 of income, a man's real income will rise and 落ちる with the 量 of his 命令（する） over 労働-部隊s, i.e. with the 量 of his income 手段d in 行う-部隊s; though when the aggregate 容積／容量 of 生産（高） changes, his real income will (借りがあるing to the 操作／手術 of 減少（する）ing returns) rise いっそう少なく than in 割合 to his income 手段d in 行う-部隊s. As a first approximation, therefore, we can reasonably assume that, if the 行う-部隊 changes, the 支出 on 消費 corresponding to a given level of 雇用 will, like prices, change in the same 割合; though in some circumstances we may have to make an allowance for the possible reactions on aggregate 消費 of the change in the 配当 of a given real income between entrepreneurs and rentiers resulting from a change in the 行う-部隊. Apart from this, we have already 許すd for changes in the 行う-部隊 by defining the propensity to 消費する ーに関して／ーの点でs of income 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s.
(2) A change in the difference between income and 逮捕する income. We have shown above that the 量 of 消費 depends on 逮捕する income rather than on income, since it is, by 鮮明度／定義, his 逮捕する income that a man has まず第一に／本来 in mind when he is deciding his 規模 of 消費. In a given 状況／情勢 there may be a somewhat stable 関係 between the two, in the sense that there will be a 機能（する）／行事 uniquely relating different levels of income to the corresponding levels of 逮捕する income. If, however, this should not be the 事例／患者, such part of any change in income as is not 反映するd in 逮捕する income must be neglected since it will have no 影響 on 消費; and, 類似して, a change in 逮捕する income, not 反映するd in income, must be 許すd for. Save in exceptional circumstances, however, I 疑問 the practical importance of this factor. We will return to a fuller discussion of the 影響 on 消費 of the difference between income and 逮捕する income in the fourth section of this 一時期／支部.
(3) Windfall changes in 資本／首都-values not 許すd for in calculating 逮捕する income. These are of much more importance in 修正するing the propensity to 消費する, since they will 耐える no stable or 正規の／正選手 関係 to the 量 of income. The 消費 of the wealth-owning class may be 極端に susceptible to unforeseen changes in the money-value of its wealth. This should be 分類するd amongst the major factors 有能な of 原因（となる）ing short-period changes in the propensity to 消費する.
(4) Changes in the 率 of time-割引ing, i.e. in the 割合 of 交流 between 現在の goods and 未来 goods. This is not やめる the same thing as the 率 of 利益／興味, since it 許すs for 未来 changes in the 購入（する）ing 力／強力にする of money in so far as these are foreseen. Account has also to be taken of all 肉親，親類d of 危険s, such as the prospect of not living to enjoy the 未来 goods or of confiscatory 課税. As an approximation, however, we can identify this with the 率 of 利益／興味.
The 影響（力） of this factor on the 率 of spending out of a
given income is open to a good 取引，協定 of 疑問. For the classical
theory of the 率 of 利益／興味,
which was based on the idea that the 率 of 利益／興味 was the
factor which brought the 供給（する） and 需要・要求する for 貯金 into
equilibrium, it was convenient to suppose that 支出 on
消費 is cet. par. negatively 極度の慎重さを要する to changes
in the 率 of 利益／興味, so that any rise in the 率 of 利益／興味
would appreciably 減らす 消費. It has long been
recognised, however, that the total 影響 of changes in the 率
ofinterest on the 準備完了 to spend on 現在の 消費 is
コンビナート／複合体 and uncertain, 存在 扶養家族 on 相反する 傾向s,
since some of the subjective 動機s に向かって saving will be more
easily 満足させるd if the 率 of 利益／興味 rises, whilst others
will be 弱めるd. Over a long period 相当な changes in the
率 of 利益／興味 probably tend to 修正する social habits
かなり, thus 影響する／感情ing the subjective propensity to spendｾthough in which direction it would be hard
to say, except in the light of actual experience. The usual type
of short-period fluctuation in the 率 of 利益／興味 is not
likely, however, to have much direct 影響（力） on spending either
way.
There are not many people who will alter their way of living because the 率 of 利益／興味 has fallen from 5 to 4 per cent, if their aggregate income is the same as before. 間接に there may be more 影響s, though not all in the same direction. Perhaps the most important 影響（力）, operating through changes in the 率 of 利益／興味, on the 準備完了 to spend out of a given income, depends on the 影響 of these changes on the 評価 or 価値低下 in the price of 安全s and other 資産s. For if a man is enjoying a windfall increment in the value of his 資本／首都, it is natural that his 動機s に向かって 現在の spending should be 強化するd, even though ーに関して／ーの点でs of income his 資本／首都 is 価値（がある） no more than before; and 弱めるd if he is 苦しむing 資本／首都 losses. But this indirect 影響（力） we have 許すd for already under (3) above. Apart from this, the main 結論 示唆するd by experience is, I think, that the short-period 影響（力） of the 率 of 利益／興味 on individual spending out of a given income is 第２位 and 比較して unimportant, except, perhaps, where 異常に large changes are in question. When the 率 of 利益／興味 落ちるs very low indeed, the 増加する in the 割合 between an annuity purchasable for a given sum and the 年次の 利益／興味 on that sum may, however, 供給する an important source of 消極的な saving by encouraging the practice of 供給するing for old age by the 購入（する） of an annuity.
The 異常な 状況／情勢, where the propensity to 消費する may be はっきりと 影響する／感情d by the 開発 of extreme 不確定 関心ing the 未来 and what it may bring 前へ／外へ, should also, perhaps, be 分類するd under this 長，率いるing.
(5) Changes in 財政政策. In so far as the 誘導 to the individual to save depends on the 未来 return which he 推定する／予想するs, it 明確に depends not only on the 率 of 利益／興味 but on the 財政政策 of the 政府. Income 税金s, 特に when they 差別する against 'unearned' income, 税金s on 資本／首都-利益（をあげる）s, death-義務s and the like are as 関連した as the 率 of 利益／興味; whilst the 範囲 of possible changes in 財政政策 may be greater, in 期待 at least, than for the 率 of 利益／興味 itself. If 財政政策 is used as a 審議する／熟考する 器具 for the more equal 配当 of incomes, its 影響 in 増加するing the propensity to 消費する is, of course, all the greater.
We must also take account of the 影響 on the aggregate propensity to 消費する of 政府 沈むing 基金s for the 発射する／解雇する of 負債 paid for out of ordinary 課税. For these 代表する a 種類 of 法人組織の／企業の saving, so that a 政策 of 相当な 沈むing 基金s must be regarded in given circumstances as 減ずるing the propensity to 消費する. It is for this 推論する／理由 that a change-over from a 政策 of 政府 borrowing to the opposite 政策 of 供給するing 沈むing 基金s (or 副／悪徳行為 versa) is 有能な of 原因（となる）ing a 厳しい 収縮過程 (or 示すd 拡大) of 効果的な 需要・要求する.
(6) Changes in 期待s of the relation between the 現在の and the 未来 level of income. We must 目録 this factor for the sake of formal completeness. But, whilst it may 影響する／感情 かなり a particular individual's propensity to 消費する, it is likely to 普通の／平均（する） out for the community as a whole. Moreover, it is a 事柄 about which there is, as a 支配する, too much 不確定 for it to 発揮する much 影響（力）.
We are left therefore, with the 結論 that in a given 状況／情勢 the propensity to 消費する may be considered a 公正に／かなり stable 機能（する）／行事, 供給するd that we have 除去するd changes in the 行う-部隊 ーに関して／ーの点でs of money. Windfall changes in 資本／首都-values will be 有能な of changing the propensity to 消費する, and 相当な changes in the 率 of 利益／興味 and in 財政政策 may make some difference; but the other 客観的な factors which might 影響する／感情 it, whilst they must not be overlooked, are not likely to be important in ordinary circumstances.
The fact that, given the general 経済的な 状況／情勢, the
支出 on 消費 ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 行う-部隊 depends in
the main, on the 容積／容量 of 生産（高） and 雇用 is the
justification for summing up the other factors in the portmanteau
機能（する）／行事 'propensity to 消費する'. For whilst the other factors
are 有能な of 変化させるing {and this must not be forgotten), the
aggregate income 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 行う-部隊 is, as a
支配する, the 主要な／長／主犯 variable upon which the
消費-選挙権を持つ／選挙人 of the aggregate 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 will
depend.
III
認めるd, then, that the propensity to 消費する is a 公正に／かなり stable 機能（する）／行事 so that, as a 支配する, the 量 of aggregate 消費 おもに depends on the 量 of aggregate income (both 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s), changes in the propensity itself 存在 扱う／治療するd as a 第２位 影響（力）, what is the normal 形態／調整 of this 機能（する）／行事?
The 根底となる psychological 法律, upon which we are する権利を与えるd
to depend with 広大な／多数の／重要な 信用／信任 both a priori from our
knowledge of human nature and from the 詳細（に述べる）d facts of
experience, is that men are 性質の／したい気がして, as a 支配する and on the
普通の／平均（する）, to 増加する their 消費 as their income 増加するs,
but not by as much as the 増加する in their income. That is to
say, if Cw is the 量 of 消費
and Yw is income (both 手段d in
行う-部隊s) DCw
has the same 調印する as DYw
but is smaller in 量, i.e. dCw/dYw
is 肯定的な and いっそう少なく than まとまり.
This is 特に the 事例／患者 where we have short periods in 見解（をとる）, as in the 事例／患者 of the いわゆる cyclical fluctuations of 雇用 during which habits, as 際立った from more 永久の psychological propensities, are not given time enough to adapt themselves to changed 客観的な circumstances. For a man's habitual 基準 of life usually has the first （人命などを）奪う，主張する on his income, and he is apt to save the difference which discovers itself between his actual income and the expense of his habitual 基準; or, if he does adjust his 支出 to changes in his income, he will over short periods do so imperfectly. Thus a rising income will often be …を伴ってd by 増加するd saving, and a 落ちるing income by 減少（する）d saving, on a greater 規模 at first than subsequently.
But, apart from short-period changes in the level of
income, it is also obvious that a higher 絶対の level of income
will tend, as a 支配する, to 広げる the gap between income and
消費. For the satisfaction of the 即座の 最初の／主要な needs
of a man and his family is usually a stronger 動機 than the
動機s に向かって accumulation, which only acquire 効果的な sway
when a 利ざや of 慰安 has been 達成するd. These 推論する／理由s will
lead, as a 支配する, to a greater 割合 of income 存在
saved as real income 増加するs. But whether or not a greater
割合 is saved, we take it as a 根底となる psychological
支配する of any modern community that, when its real income is
増加するd, it will not 増加する its 消費 by an equal 絶対の
量, so that a greater 絶対の 量 must be saved,
unless a large and unusual change is occurring at the same time
in other factors. As we shall show subsequently, [ 65 ]
the 安定 of the 経済的な system essentially depends on this
支配する 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing in practice. This means that, if 雇用 and
hence aggregate income 増加する, not all the 付加
雇用 will be 要求するd to 満足させる the needs of 付加
消費.
On the other 手渡す, a 拒絶する／低下する in income 予定 to a 拒絶する／低下する in the level of 雇用, if it goes far, may even 原因（となる） 消費 to 越える income not only by some individuals and 会・原則s using up the 財政上の reserves which they have 蓄積するd in better times, but also by the 政府, which will be liable, willingly or unwillingly, to run into a 予算上の 赤字 or will 供給する 失業 救済; for example, out of borrowed money. Thus, when 雇用 落ちるs to a low level, aggregate 消費 will 拒絶する／低下する by a smaller 量 than that by which real income has 拒絶する／低下するd, by 推論する／理由 both of the habitual behaviour of individuals and also of the probable 政策 of 政府s; which is the explanation why a new position of equilibrium can usually be reached within a modest 範囲 of fluctuation. さもなければ a 落ちる in 雇用 and income, once started, might proceed to extreme lengths.
This simple 原則 leads, it will be seen, to the same
結論 as before, すなわち, that 雇用 can only 増加する pari
passu with an 増加する in 投資; unless, indeed, there
is a change in the propensity to 消費する. For since 消費者s
will spend いっそう少なく than the 増加する in aggregate 供給（する） price when
雇用 is 増加するd, the 増加するd 雇用 will 証明する
無益な unless there is an 増加する in 投資 to fill
the gap.
IV
We must not underestimate the importance of the fact already について言及するd above that, 反して 雇用 is a 機能（する）／行事 of the 推定する／予想するd 消費 and the 推定する／予想するd 投資, 消費 is, cet. par., a 機能（する）／行事 of 逮捕する income, i.e. of 逮捕する 投資 (逮捕する income 存在 equal to 消費 加える 逮捕する 投資). In other words, the larger the 財政上の 準備／条項 which it is thought necessary to make before reckoning 逮捕する income, the いっそう少なく favourable to 消費, and therefore to 雇用, will a given level of 投資 証明する to be.
When the whole of this 財政上の 準備／条項 (or 補足の cost) is in fact 現在／一般に expended in the upkeep of the already 存在するing 資本／首都 器具／備品, this point is not likely to be overlooked. But when the 財政上の 準備／条項 越えるs the actual 支出 on 現在の upkeep, the practical results of this in its 影響 on 雇用 are not always 高く評価する／（相場などが）上がるd. For the 量 of this 超過 neither 直接／まっすぐに gives rise to 現在の 投資 nor is 利用できる to 支払う／賃金 for 消費. It has, therefore, to be balanced by new 投資, the 需要・要求する for which has arisen やめる 独立して of the 現在の wastage of old 器具／備品 against which the 財政上の 準備／条項 is 存在 made; with the result that the new 投資 利用できる to 供給する 現在の income is 対応して 減らすd and a more 激しい 需要・要求する for new 投資 is necessary to make possible a given level of 雇用. Moreover, much the same considerations 適用する to the allowance for wastage 含むd in 使用者 cost, in so far as the wastage is not 現実に made good.
Take a house which continues to be habitable until it is 破壊するd or abandoned. If a 確かな sum is written off its value out of the 年次の rent paid by the tenants, which the landlord neither spends on upkeep nor regards as 逮捕する income 利用できる for 消費, this 準備／条項, whether it is a part of U or of V; 構成するs a drag on 雇用 all through the life of the house, suddenly made good in a lump when the house has to be rebuilt.
In a 静止している economy all this might not be 価値（がある） について言及するing, since in each year the 価値低下 allowances in 尊敬（する）・点 of old houses would be 正確に／まさに 相殺する by the new houses built in 交替／補充 of those reaching the end of their lives in that year. But such factors may be serious in a 非，不，無-static economy, 特に during a period which すぐに 後継するs a lively burst of 投資 in long-lived 資本／首都. For in such circumstances a very large 割合 of the new items of 投資 may be 吸収するd by the larger 財政上の 準備／条項s made by entrepreneurs in 尊敬（する）・点 of 存在するing 資本／首都 器具／備品, upon the 修理s and 再開 of which, though it is wearing out with time, the date has not yet arrived for spending anything approaching the 十分な 財政上の 準備／条項 which is 存在 始める，決める aside; with the result that incomes cannot rise above a level which is low enough to correspond with a low aggregate of 逮捕する 投資. Thus 沈むing 基金s, etc., are apt to 身を引く spending 力／強力にする from the 消費者 long before the 需要・要求する for 支出 on 交替／補充s (which such 準備／条項s are 心配するing) comes into play; i.e. they 減らす the 現在の 効果的な 需要・要求する and only 増加する it in the year in which the 交替／補充 is 現実に made. If the 影響 of this is 悪化させるd by '財政上の prudence', i.e. by its 存在 thought advisable to '帳消しにする' the 初期の cost more 速く than the 器具／備品 現実に wears out, the cumulative result may be very serious indeed.
In the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs, for example, by 1929 the 早い 資本／首都
拡大 of the previous five years had led cumulatively to the
setting up of 沈むing 基金s and 価値低下 allowances, in
尊敬（する）・点 of 工場／植物 which did not need 交替／補充, on so 抱擁する a
規模 that an enormous 容積／容量 of 完全に new 投資 was
要求するd 単に to 吸収する these 財政上の 準備／条項s; and it
became almost hopeless to find still more new 投資 on a
十分な 規模 to 供給する for such new saving as a 豊富な
community in 十分な 雇用 would be 性質の／したい気がして to 始める，決める aside. This
factor alone was probably 十分な to 原因（となる） a 低迷. And,
その上に, since '財政上の prudence' of this 肉親，親類d continued to
be 演習d through the 低迷 by those 広大な／多数の／重要な 会社／団体s which
were still in a position to afford it, it 申し込む／申し出d a serious
障害 to 早期に 回復.
Or again, in 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain at the 現在の time (1935) the 相当な 量 of house-building and of other new 投資s since the war has led to an 量 of 沈むing 基金s 存在 始める，決める up much in 超過 of any 現在の 必要物／必要条件s for 支出 on 修理s and 再開s, a 傾向 which has been accentuated, where the 投資 has been made by 地元の 当局 and public boards, by the 原則s of 'sound' 財政／金融 which often 要求する 沈むing 基金s 十分な to 帳消しにする the 初期の cost some time before 交替／補充 will 現実に 落ちる 予定; with the result that even if 私的な individuals were ready to spend the whole of their 逮捕する incomes it would be a 厳しい 仕事 to 回復する 十分な 雇用 in the 直面する of this 激しい 容積／容量 of statutory 準備／条項 by public and 半分-public 当局, 完全に dissociated from any corresponding new 投資. The 沈むing 基金s of 地元の 当局 now stand, I think, at an 年次の 人物／姿／数字 of more than half the 量 which these 当局 are spending on the whole of their new 開発s. Yet it is not 確かな that the 省 of Health are aware, when they 主張する on stiff 沈むing 基金s by 地元の 当局, how much they may be 悪化させるing the problem of 失業. In the 事例／患者 of 前進するs by building societies to help an individual to build his own house, the 願望（する） to be （疑いを）晴らす of 負債 more 速く than the house 現実に 悪化するs may 刺激する the house-owner to save more than he さもなければ would;ｾthough this factor should be 分類するd, perhaps, as 減らすing the propensity to 消費する 直接／まっすぐに rather than through its 影響 on 逮捕する income. In actual 人物／姿／数字s, 返済s of mortgages 前進するd by building societies, which 量d to ｣24,000,000 in 1925, had risen to ｣68,000,000 by 1933, as compared with new 前進するs of ｣103,000,000; and to-day the 返済s are probably still higher.
That it is 投資, rather than 逮捕する 投資, which
現れるs from the 統計（学） of 生産（高）, is brought out 強制的に
and 自然に in Mr Colin Clark's 国家の Income, 1924-1931. He also shows what a large
割合 価値低下, etc., 普通は 耐えるs to the value of
投資. For example, he 見積（る）s that in 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain, over
the years 1928-1931,
the 投資 and the 逮捕する 投資 were as follows, though his
甚だしい／１２ダース 投資 is probably somewhat greater than my 投資,
inasmuch as it may 含む a part of 使用者 cost, and it is not
（疑いを）晴らす how closely his '逮捕する 投資' corresponds to my
鮮明度／定義 of this 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語:
| (｣ million) | ||||
| 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1931 | |
| 甚だしい／１２ダース 投資-生産（高） | 791 | 731 | 620 | 482 |
| 'Value of physical wasting of old 資本／首都' | 433 | 435 | 437 | 439 |
| 逮捕する 投資 | 358 | 296 | 183 | 43 |
Mr Kuznets has arrived at much the same 結論 in 収集するing the 統計（学） of the 甚だしい／１２ダース 資本／首都 形式 (as he calls what I call 投資) in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs, 1919-1933. The physical fact, to which the 統計（学） of 生産（高） correspond, is 必然的に the 甚だしい／１２ダース, and not the 逮捕する, 投資. Mr Kuznets has also discovered the difficulties in passing from 甚だしい／１２ダース 投資 to 逮捕する 投資. 'The difficulty', he 令状s, 'of passing from 甚だしい／１２ダース to 逮捕する 資本／首都 形式, that is, the difficulty of 訂正するing for the 消費 of 存在するing 持続する 商品／必需品s, is not only in the 欠如（する） of data. The very 概念 of 年次の 消費 of 商品／必需品s that last over a number of years 苦しむs from ambiguity'. He 落ちるs 支援する, therefore, 'on the 仮定／引き受けること that the allowance for 価値低下 and depletion on the 調書をとる／予約するs of 商売／仕事 会社／堅いs 述べるs 正確に the 容積／容量 of 消費 of already 存在するing, finished 持続する goods used by 商売／仕事 会社／堅いs' On the other 手渡す, he 試みる／企てるs no deduction at all in 尊敬（する）・点 of houses and other 持続する 商品／必需品s in the 手渡すs of individuals. His very 利益／興味ing results for the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs can be summarised as follows:
Several facts 現れる with prominence from this （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する. 逮捕する
資本／首都 形式 was very 安定した over the quinquennium 1925-1929, with only a 10 パーセント
| (Millions of dollars) | |||||
| 1925 | 1926 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | |
| 甚だしい／１２ダース 資本／首都 形式 (after 許すing for 逮捕する change in 商売／仕事 在庫s) |
30,706 | 33,571 | 31,157 | 33,934 | 34,491 |
| Entrepreneurs' servicing, 修理s, 維持／整備, 価値低下 and depletion | 7,685 | 8,288 | 8,223 | 8,481 | 9,010 |
| 逮捕する 資本／首都 形式 (on Mr Kuznets' 鮮明度／定義) |
23,021 | 25,283 | 22,934 | 25,453 | 25,481 |
| (Millions of dollars) | ||||
| 1930 | 1931 | 1932 | 1933 | |
| 甚だしい／１２ダース 資本／首都 形式 (after 許すing for 逮捕する change in 商売／仕事 在庫s) |
27,538 | 18,721 | 7,780 | 14,879 |
| Entrepreneurs' servicing, 修理s, 維持／整備, 価値低下 and depletion | 8,502 | 7,623 | 6,543 | 8,204 |
| 逮捕する 資本／首都 形式 (on Mr Kuznets' 鮮明度／定義) |
19,036 | 11,098 | 1,237 | 6,675 |
増加する in the latter part of the 上向き movement. The deduction for entrepreneurs' 修理s, 維持／整備, 価値低下 and depletion remained at a high 人物／姿／数字 even at the 底（に届く） of the 低迷. But Mr Kuznets' method must surely lead to too low an 見積（る） of the 年次の 増加する in 価値低下, etc.; for he puts the latter at いっそう少なく than 1ｽ per cent per 年 of the new 逮捕する 資本／首都 形式. Above all, 逮捕する 資本／首都 形式 苦しむd an appalling 崩壊（する） after 1929, 落ちるing in 1932 to a 人物／姿／数字 no いっそう少なく than 95 per cent below the 普通の／平均（する） of the quinquennium 1925-1929.
The above is, to some extent, a digression. But it is important to 強調 the magnitude of the deduction which has to be made from the income of a society, which already 所有するs a large 在庫／株 of 資本／首都, before we arrive at the 逮捕する income which is ordinarily 利用できる for 消費. For if we overlook this, we may underestimate the 激しい drag on the propensity to 消費する which 存在するs even in 条件s where the public is ready to 消費する a very large 割合 of its 逮捕する income.
消費ｾto repeat the obviousｾis the 単独の end and 反対する of all 経済的な activity. 適切な時期s for 雇用 are やむを得ず 限られた／立憲的な by the extent of aggregate 需要・要求する. Aggregate 需要・要求する can be derived only from 現在の 消費 or from 現在の 準備／条項 for 未来 消費. The 消費 for which we can profitably 供給する in 前進する cannot be 押し進めるd 無期限に／不明確に into the 未来. We cannot, as a community, 供給する for 未来 消費 by 財政上の expedients but only by 現在の physical 生産（高）. In so far as our social and 商売／仕事 organisation separates 財政上の 準備／条項 for the 未来 from physical 準備／条項 for the 未来 so that 成果／努力s to 安全な・保証する the former do not やむを得ず carry the latter with them, 財政上の prudence will be liable to 減らす aggregate 需要・要求する and thus impair 井戸／弁護士席-存在, as there are many examples to 証言する. The grcater, moreover, the 消費 for which we have 供給するd in 前進する, the more difficult it is to find something その上の to 供給する for in 前進する, and the greater our dependence on 現在の 消費 as a source of 需要・要求する. Yet the larger our incomes, the greater, unfortunately, is the 利ざや between our incomes and our 消費. So, failing some novel expedient, there is, as we shall see, no answer to the riddle, except that there must be 十分な 失業 to keep us so poor that our 消費 落ちるs short of our income by no more than the 同等（の） of the physical 準備／条項 for 未来 消費 which it 支払う／賃金s to produce to-day.
Or look at the 事柄 thus. 消費 is 満足させるd partly by 反対するs produced 現在／一般に and partly by 反対するs produced 以前, i.e. by disinvestment. To the extent that 消費 is 満足させるd by the latter, there is a 収縮過程 of 現在の 需要・要求する, since to that extent a part of 現在の 支出 fails to find its way 支援する as a part of 逮捕する income. Contrariwise whenever an 反対する is produced within the period with a 見解（をとる） to 満足させるing 消費 subsequently, an 拡大 of 現在の 需要・要求する is 始める，決める up. Now all 資本／首都-投資 is 運命にあるd to result, sooner or later, in 資本／首都-disinvestment. Thus the problem of 供給するing that new 資本／首都-投資 shall always outrun 資本／首都-disinvestment 十分に to fill the gap between 逮捕する income and 消費, 現在のs a problem which is ますます difficult as 資本／首都 増加するs. New 資本／首都-投資 can only take place in 超過 of 現在の 資本／首都-disinvestment if 未来 支出 on 消費 is 推定する／予想するd to 増加する. Each time we 安全な・保証する to-day's equilibrium by 増加するd 投資 we are 悪化させるing the difficulty of 安全な・保証するing equilibrium to-morrow. A 減らすd propensity to 消費する to-day can only be 融通するd to the public advantage if an 増加するd propensity to 消費する is 推定する／予想するd to 存在する some day. We are reminded of 'The Fable of the Bees'ｾthe gay of tomorrow are 絶対 不可欠の to 供給する a raison d'黎re for the 墓／厳粛／彫る／重大な of to-day. It is a curious thing, worthy of について言及する, that the popular mind seems only to be aware of this ultimate perplexity where public 投資 is 関心d, as in the 事例／患者 of road-building and house-building and the like. It is 一般的に 勧めるd as an 反対 to 計画／陰謀s for raising 雇用 by 投資 under the 後援 of public 当局 that it is laying up trouble for the 未来. 'What will you do,' it is asked, 'when you have built all the houses and roads and town halls and electric grids and water 供給（する）s and so 前へ／外へ which the 静止している 全住民 of the 未来 can be 推定する／予想するd to 要求する?' But it is not so easily understood that the same difficulty 適用するs to 私的な 投資 and to 産業の 拡大; 特に to the latter, since it is much easier to see an 早期に satiation of the 需要・要求する for new factories and 工場／植物 which 吸収する 個々に but little money, than of the 需要・要求する for dwelling-houses.
The 障害 to a （疑いを）晴らす understanding is, in these examples,
much the same as in many academic discussions of 資本／首都, すなわち,
an 不十分な 評価 of the fact that 資本／首都 is not a
self-subsistent （独立の）存在 存在するing apart from 消費. On the
contrary, every 弱めるing in the propensity to 消費する regarded
as a 永久の habit must 弱める the 需要・要求する for 資本／首都 同様に
as the 需要・要求する for 消費.
一時期／支部 9
II. THE SUBJECTIVE FACTORS
I
There remains the second 部類 of factors which 影響する／感情 the 量 of 消費 out of a given incomeｾすなわち, those subjective and social incentives which 決定する how much is spent, given the aggregate of income ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s and given the 関連した 客観的な factors which we have already discussed. Since, however, the 分析 of these factors raises no point of novelty, it may be 十分な if we give a 目録 of the more important, without 大きくするing on them at any length.
There are, in general, eight main 動機s or 反対するs of a
subjective character which lead individuals to 差し控える from
spending out of their incomes:
(i) To build up a reserve against unforeseen contingencies;
(ii) To 供給する for an 心配するd 未来 relation between the income and the needs of the individual or his family different from that which 存在するs in the 現在の, as, for example, in relation to old age, family education, or the 維持／整備 of 扶養家族s;
(iii) To enjoy 利益／興味 and 評価, i.e. because a larger real 消費 at a later date is preferred to a smaller 即座の 消費;
(iv) To enjoy a 徐々に 増加するing 支出, since it gratifies a ありふれた instinct to look 今後 to a 徐々に 改善するing 基準 of life rather than the contrary, even though the capacity for enjoyment may be 減らすing;
(v) To enjoy a sense of independence and the 力／強力にする to do things, though without a （疑いを）晴らす idea or 限定された 意向 of 明確な／細部 活動／戦闘;
(vi) To 安全な・保証する a 集まり de manoeuvre to carry out 思索的な or 商売／仕事 事業／計画（する）s;
(vii) To bequeath a fortune;
(viii) To 満足させる pure miserliness, i.e. 不当な but insistent inhibitions against 行為／法令／行動するs of 支出 as such.
These eight 動機s might be called the 動機s of 警戒, Foresight, 計算／見積り, 改良, Independence, 企業, Pride and Avarice; and we could also draw up a corresponding 名簿（に載せる）／表（にあげる） of 動機s to 消費 such as Enjoyment, Shortsightedness, Generosity, Miscalculation, Ostentation and Extravagance.
Apart from the 貯金 蓄積するd by individuals, there is
also the large 量 of income, 変化させるing perhaps from one-third
to two-thirds of the total accumulation in a modern 産業の
community such as 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain or the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs, which is
withheld by central and 地元の 政府, by 会・原則s and by
商売／仕事 会社／団体sｾfor 動機s
大部分は analogous to, but not 同一の with, those actuating
individuals, and おもに the four に引き続いて:
(i) The 動機 of 企業ｾto 安全な・保証する 資源s to carry out その上の 資本／首都 投資 without incurring 負債 or raising その上の 資本／首都 on the market;
(ii) The 動機 of liquidityｾto 安全な・保証する liquid 資源s to 会合，会う 緊急s, difficulties and 不景気s;
(iii) The 動機 of 改良ｾto 安全な・保証する a 徐々に 増加するing income, which, incidentally, will 保護する the 管理／経営 from 批評, since 増加するing income 予定 to accumulation is seldom distinguished from 増加するing income 予定 to efficiency;
(iv) The 動機 of 財政上の prudence and the 苦悩 to be 'on the 権利 味方する' by making a 財政上の 準備／条項 in 超過 of 使用者 and 補足の cost, so as to 発射する／解雇する 負債 and 帳消しにする the cost of 資産s ahead of; rather than behind, the actual 率 of wastage and obsolescence, the strength of this 動機 おもに depending on the 量 and character of the 資本／首都 器具／備品 and the 率 of technical change.
Corresponding to these 動機s which favour the 保留するing of a part of income from 消費, there are also operative at times 動機s which lead to an 超過 of 消費 over income. Several of the 動機s に向かって 肯定的な saving 目録d above as 影響する／感情ing individuals have their ーするつもりであるd 相当するもの in 消極的な saving at a later date, as, for example, with saving to 供給する for family needs or old age. 失業 救済 財政／金融d by borrowing is best regarded as 消極的な saving.
Now the strength of all these 動機s will 変化させる enormously
によれば the 会・原則s and organisation of the 経済的な
society which we 推定する, によれば habits formed by race,
education, 条約, 宗教 and 現在の morals, によれば
現在の hopes and past experience, によれば the 規模 and
technique of 資本／首都 器具／備品, and によれば the 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing
配当 of wealth and the 設立するd 基準s of life. In
the argument of this 調書をとる／予約する, however, we shall not 関心
ourselves, except in 時折の digressions, with the results of
far-reaching social changes or with the slow 影響s of 世俗的な
進歩. We shall, that is to say, take as given the main
background of subjective 動機s to saving and to 消費 それぞれ. In so far
as the 配当 of wealth is 決定するd by the more or いっそう少なく
永久の social structure of the community, this also can be
reckoned a factor, 支配する only to slow change and over a long
period, which we can take as given in our 現在の 状況.
II
Since, therefore, the main background of subjective and social incentives changes slowly, whilst the short-period 影響（力） of changes in the 率 of 利益／興味 and the other 客観的な factors is often of 第２位 importance, we are left with the 結論 that short-period changes in 消費 大部分は depend on changes in the 率 at which income (手段d in 行う-部隊s) is 存在 earned and not on changes in the propensity to 消費する out of a given income.
We must, however, guard against a 誤解. The above means that the 影響（力） of 穏健な changes in the 率 of 利益／興味 on the propensity to 消費する is usually small. It does not mean that changes in the 率 of 利益／興味 have only a small 影響（力） on the 量s 現実に saved and 消費するd. やめる the contrary. The 影響（力） of changes in the 率 of 利益／興味 on the 量 現実に saved is of 最高位の importance, but is in the opposite direction to that usually supposed. For even if the attraction of the larger 未来 income to be earned from a higher 率 of 利益／興味 has the 影響 of 減らすing the propensity to 消費する, にもかかわらず we can be 確かな that a rise in the 率 of 利益／興味 will have the 影響 of 減ずるing the 量 現実に saved. For aggregate saving is 治める／統治するd by aggregate 投資; a rise in the 率 of 利益／興味 (unless it is 相殺する by a corresponding change in the 需要・要求する-schedule for 投資) will 減らす 投資; hence a rise in the 率 of 利益／興味 must have the 影響 of 減ずるing incomes to a level at which saving is 減少（する）d in the same 手段 as 投資. Since incomes will 減少（する） by a greater 絶対の 量 than 投資, it is, indeed, true that, when the 率 of 利益／興味 rises, the 率 of 消費 will 減少（する）. But this does not mean that there will be a wider 利ざや for saving. On the contrary, saving and spending will both 減少（する）.
Thus, even if it is the 事例／患者 that a rise in the 率 of 利益／興味 would 原因（となる） the community to save more out of a given income, we can be やめる sure that a rise in the 率 of 利益／興味 (assuming no favourable change in the 需要・要求する-schedule for 投資) will 減少（する） the actual aggregate of 貯金. The same line of argument can even tell us by how much a rise in the 率 of 利益／興味 will, cet. par., 減少（する） incomes. For incomes will have to 落ちる (or be redistributed) by just that 量 which is 要求するd, with the 存在するing propensity to 消費する to 減少（する） 貯金 by the same 量 by which the rise in the 率 of 利益／興味 will, with the 存在するing ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都, 減少（する） 投資. A 詳細（に述べる）d examination of this 面 will 占領する our next 一時期／支部.
The rise in the 率 of 利益／興味 might induce us to save more, if our incomes were 不変の. But if the higher 率 of 利益／興味 retards 投資, our incomes will not, and cannot, be 不変の. They must やむを得ず 落ちる, until the 拒絶する／低下するing capacity to save has 十分に 相殺する the 刺激 to save given by the higher 率 of 利益／興味. The more virtuous we are, the more determinedly thrifty, the more obstinately 正統派の in our 国家の and personal 財政／金融, the more our incomes will have to 落ちる when 利益／興味 rises 比較して to the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都. Obstinacy can bring only a 刑罰，罰則 and no reward. For the result is 必然的な.
Thus, after all, the actual 率s of aggregate saving and
spending do not depend on 警戒, Foresight, 計算／見積り,
改良, Independence, 企業, Pride or Avarice. Virtue
and 副／悪徳行為 play no part. It all depends on how far the 率 of 利益／興味 is favourable to
投資, after taking account of the ごくわずかの efficiency of
資本／首都.
No, this is an overstatement. If the 率 of 利益／興味 were so
治める／統治するd as to 持続する continuous 十分な 雇用, virtue would
再開する her sway;ｾthe 率 of 資本／首都
accumulation would depend on the 証拠不十分 of the propensity to
消費する. Thus, once again, the 尊敬の印 that classical 経済学者s
支払う／賃金 to her is 予定 to their 隠すd 仮定／引き受けること that the 率 of
利益／興味 always is so 治める／統治するd.
一時期／支部 10
We 設立するd in 一時期／支部 8 that 雇用 can only 増加する pari
passu with 投資 unless there is a change in the propensity to
消費する. We can now carry this line of thought a 行う／開催する／段階 その上の. For in
given circumstances a 限定された 割合, to be called the multiplier,
can be 設立するd between income and 投資 and, 支配する to 確かな
simplifications, between the total 雇用 and the 雇用 直接／まっすぐに
雇うd on 投資 (which we shall call the 最初の／主要な 雇用).
This その上の step is an integral part of our theory of 雇用, since
it 設立するs a 正確な 関係, given the propensity to 消費する,
between aggregate 雇用 and income and the 率 of 投資. The
conception of the multiplier was first introduced into 経済的な theory
by Mr R. F. Kahn in his article on 'The Relation of Home 投資 to
失業' (経済的な 定期刊行物, June 1931). His argument in this
article depended on the 根底となる notion that, if the propensity to 消費する
in さまざまな hypothetical circumstances is (together with 確かな other 条件s)
taken as given and we conceive the 通貨の or other public 当局 to
take steps to 刺激する or to retard 投資, the change in the 量
of 雇用 will be a 機能（する）／行事 of the 逮捕する change in the 量 of 投資;
and it 目的（とする）d at laying 負かす／撃墜する general 原則s by which to 見積（る） the
actual quantitative 関係 between an increment of 逮捕する 投資 and the increment of aggregate 雇用 which
will be associated with it. Before coming to the multiplier, however, it
will be convenient to introduce the conception of the ごくわずかの propensity
to 消費する.
I
The fluctuations in real income under consideration in this 調書をとる／予約する are those which result from 適用するing different 量s of 雇用 (i.e. of 労働-部隊s) to a given 資本／首都 器具／備品, so that real income 増加するs and 減少（する）s with the number of 労働-部隊s 雇うd. If, as we assume in general, there is a 減少（する）ing return at the 利ざや as the number of 労働-部隊s 雇うd on the given 資本／首都 器具／備品 is 増加するd, income 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s will 増加する more than in 割合 to the 量 of 雇用, which, in turn, will 増加する more than in 割合 to the 量 of real income 手段d (if that is possible) ーに関して／ーの点でs of 製品. Real income 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of 製品 and income 手段d in 条件 of 行う-部隊s will, however, 増加する and 減少（する） together (in the short period when 資本／首都 器具／備品 is 事実上 不変の). Since, therefore, real income, ーに関して／ーの点でs of 製品, may be incapable of 正確な 数値／数字による 測定, it is often convenient to regard income ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s (Yw) as an 適する working 索引 of changes in real income. In 確かな 状況s we must not overlook the fact that, in general, Yw 増加するs and 減少（する）s in a greater 割合 than real income; but in other 状況s the fact that they always 増加する and 減少（する） together （判決などを）下すs them 事実上 interchangeable.
Our normal psychological 法律 that, when the real income of the community 増加するs or 減少（する）s, its 消費 will 増加する or 減少（する） but not so 急速な／放蕩な, can, therefore, be translated¾not, indeed, with 絶対の 正確 but 支配する to 資格s which are obvious and can easily be 明言する／公表するd in a 正式に 完全にする fashion into the propositions that DCw and DYw have the same 調印する, but DYw > DCw, where Cw is the 消費 ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s. This is 単に a repetition of the proposition already 設立するd in 一時期／支部 3 above. Let us define, then, dCw/dYw as the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する.
This 量 is of かなりの importance, because it tells us how the next increment of 生産（高） will have to be divided between 消費 and 投資. For DYw = DCw + DIw, where Cw and Iw are the increments of 消費 and 投資; so that we can 令状 DYw = kDIw, where 1 - 1/k is equal to the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する.
Let us call k the 投資 multiplier. It tells us that,
when there is an increment of aggregate 投資, income will 増加する
by an 量 which is k times the increment of 投資.
II
Mr Kahn's multiplier is a little different from this, 存在 what we may call the 雇用 multiplier 指定するd by k', since it 対策 the 割合 of the increment of total 雇用 which is associated with a given increment of 最初の／主要な 雇用 in the 投資 産業s. That is to say, if the increment of 投資 DIw leads to an increment of 最初の／主要な 雇用 DN2 in the 投資 産業s, the increment of total 雇用 DN = k'DN2.
There is no 推論する／理由 in general to suppose that k = k'. For there is no necessary presumption that the 形態／調整s of the 関連した 部分s of the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事s for different types of 産業 are such that the 割合 of the increment of 雇用 in the one 始める，決める of 産業s to the increment of 需要・要求する which has 刺激するd it will be the same as in the other 始める，決める of 産業s. It is 平易な, indeed, to conceive of 事例／患者s, as, for example, where the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する is 広範囲にわたって different from the 普通の／平均（する） propensity, in which there would be a presumption in favour of some 不平等 between DYw/DN and DIw/DN2, since there would be very 相違する proportionate changes in the 需要・要求するs for 消費-goods and 投資-goods それぞれ. If we wish to take account of such possible differences in the 形態／調整s of the 関連した 部分s of the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事s for the two groups of 産業s それぞれ, there is no difficulty in rewriting the に引き続いて argument in the more generalised form. But to elucidate the ideas 伴う／関わるd, it will be convenient to を取り引きする the 簡単にするd 事例／患者 where k = k'.
It follows, therefore, that, if the 消費 psychology of the community is such that they will choose to 消費する, e.g. nine-tenths of an increment of income, then the multiplier k is 10; and the total 雇用 原因（となる）d by (e.g.) 増加するd public 作品 will be ten times the 最初の／主要な 雇用 供給するd by the public 作品 themselves, assuming no 削減 of 投資 in other directions. Only in the event of the community 持続するing their 消費 不変の in spite of the 増加する in 雇用 and hence in real income, will the 増加する of 雇用 be 制限するd to the 最初の／主要な 雇用 供給するd by the public 作品. If, on the other 手渡す, they 捜し出す to 消費する the whole of any increment of income, there will be no point of 安定 and prices will rise without 限界. With normal psychological suppositions, an 増加する in 雇用 will only be associated with a 拒絶する／低下する in 消費 if there is at the same time a change in the propensity to 消費する¾as the result, for instance, of 宣伝 in time of war in favour of 制限するing individual 消費; and it is only in this event that the 増加するd 雇用 in 投資 will be associated with an unfavourable repercussion on 雇用 in the 産業s producing for 消費.
This only sums up in a 決まり文句／製法 what should by now be obvious to the reader on general grounds. An increment of 投資 ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s cannot occur unless the public are 用意が出来ている to 増加する their 貯金 in 条件 of 行う-部隊s. Ordinarily speaking, the public will not do this unless their aggregate income ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s is 増加するing. Thus their 成果／努力 to 消費する a part of their 増加するd incomes will 刺激する 生産（高） until the new level (and 配当) of incomes 供給するs a 利ざや of saving 十分な to correspond to the 増加するd 投資. The multiplier tells us by how much their 雇用 has to be 増加するd to 産する／生じる an 増加する in real income 十分な to induce them to do the necessary extra saving, and is a 機能（する）／行事 of their psychological propensities. If saving is the pill and 消費 is the jam, the extra jam has to be 割合d to the size of the 付加 pill. Unless the psychological propensities of the public are different from what we are supposing, we have here 設立するd the 法律 that 増加するd 雇用 for 投資 must やむを得ず 刺激する the 産業s producing for 消費 and thus lead to a total 増加する of 雇用 which is a 多重の of the 最初の／主要な 雇用 要求するd by the 投資 itself.
It follows from the above that, if the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する is not far short of まとまり, small fluctuations in 投資 will lead to wide fluctuations in 雇用; but, at the same time, a comparatively small increment of 投資 will lead to 十分な 雇用. If, on the other 手渡す, the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する is not much above 無, small fluctuations in 投資 will lead to 対応して small fluctuations in 雇用; but, at the same time, it may 要求する a large increment of 投資 to produce 十分な 雇用. In the former 事例／患者 involuntary 失業 would be an easily 治療（薬）d malady, though liable to be troublesome if it is 許すd to develop. In the latter 事例／患者, 雇用 may be いっそう少なく variable but liable to settle 負かす／撃墜する at a low level and to 証明する recalcitrant to any but the most 激烈な 治療（薬）s. In actual fact the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する seems to 嘘（をつく） somewhere between these two extremes, though much nearer to まとまり than to 無; with the result that we have, in a sense, the worst of both worlds, fluctuations in 雇用 存在 かなりの and, at the same time, the increment in 投資 要求するd to produce 十分な 雇用 存在 too 広大な／多数の／重要な to be easily 扱うd. Unfortunately the fluctuations have been 十分な to 妨げる the nature of the malady from 存在 obvious, whilst its severity is such that it cannot be 治療（薬）d unless its nature is understood.
When 十分な 雇用 is reached, any 試みる／企てる to 増加する 投資
still その上の will 始める，決める up a 傾向 in money-prices to rise without 限界,
irrespective of the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する; i.e. we shall have reached a 明言する／公表する of true インフレーション. Up to this point, however, rising prices will be associated with an 増加するing
aggregate real income.
III
We have been 取引，協定ing so far with a 逮捕する increment of 投資. If, therefore, we wish to 適用する the above without 資格 to the 影響 of (e.g.) 増加するd public 作品, we have to assume that there is no 相殺する through 減少（する）d 投資 in other directions,¾and also, of course, no associated change in the propensity of the community to 消費する. Mr Kahn was おもに 関心d in the article referred to above in considering what 相殺するs we せねばならない take into account as likely to be important, and in 示唆するing quantitative 見積（る）s. For in an actual 事例／患者 there are several factors besides some 明確な／細部 増加する of 投資 of a given 肉親，親類d which enter into the final result. If, for example, a 政府 雇うs 100,000 付加 men on public 作品, and if the multiplier (as defined above) is 4, it is not 安全な to assume that aggregate 雇用 will 増加する by 400,000. For the new 政策 may have 逆の reactions on 投資 in other directions.
It would seem (に引き続いて Mr Kahn) that the に引き続いて are likely in a modern community to be the factors which it is most important not to overlook (though the first two will not be fully intelligible until after 調書をとる／予約する IV has been reached):
(i) The method of 財政／金融ing the 政策 and the 増加するd working cash, 要求するd by the 増加するd 雇用 and the associated rise of prices, may have the 影響 of 増加するing the 率 of 利益／興味 and so retarding 投資 in other directions, unless the 通貨の 当局 takes steps to the contrary; whilst, at the same time, the 増加するd cost of 資本／首都 goods will 減ずる their ごくわずかの efficiency to the 私的な 投資家, and this will 要求する an actual 落ちる in the 率 of 利益／興味 to 相殺する it.
(ii) With the 混乱させるd psychology which often 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるs, the 政府 programme may, through its 影響 on '信用／信任', 増加する liquidity-preference or 減らす the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都, which, again, may retard other 投資 unless 対策 are taken to 相殺する it.
(iii) In an open system with foreign-貿易（する） relations, some part of the multiplier of the 増加するd 投資 will accrue to the 利益 of 雇用 in foreign countries, since a 割合 of the 増加するd 消費 will 減らす our own country's favourable foreign balance; so that, if we consider only the 影響 on 国内の 雇用 as 際立った from world 雇用, we must 減らす the 十分な 人物／姿／数字 of the multiplier. On the other 手渡す our own country may 回復する a 部分 of this 漏れ through favourable repercussions 予定 to the 活動／戦闘 of the multiplier in the foreign country in 増加するing its 経済的な activity.
その上に, if we are considering changes of a 相当な 量, we have to 許す for a 進歩／革新的な change in the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する, as the position of the 利ざや is 徐々に 転換d; and hence in the multiplier. The ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する is not constant for all levels of 雇用, and it is probable that there will be, as a 支配する, a 傾向 for it to 減らす as 雇用 増加するs; when real income 増加するs, that is to say, the community will wish to 消費する a 徐々に 減らすing 割合 of it.
There are also other factors, over and above the 操作／手術 of the general 支配する Just について言及するd, which may operate to 修正する the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する, and hence the multiplier; and these other factors seem likely, as a 支配する, to accentuate the 傾向 of the general 支配する rather than to 相殺する jt. For, in the first place, the 増加する of 雇用 will tend, 借りがあるing to the 影響 of 減らすing returns in the short period, to 増加する the 割合 of aggregate income which accrues to the entrepreneurs, whose individual ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する is probably いっそう少なく than the 普通の／平均（する） for the community as a whole. In the second place, 失業 is likely to be associated with 消極的な saving in 確かな ４半期/4分の1s, 私的な or public, because the 失業した may be living either on the 貯金 of themselves and their friends or on public 救済 which is partly 財政／金融d out of 貸付金s; with the result that re-雇用 will 徐々に 減らす these particular 行為／法令／行動するs of 消極的な saving and 減ずる, therefore, the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する more 速く than would have occurred from an equal 増加する in the community's real income accruing in different circumstances.
In any 事例／患者, the multiplier is likely to be greater for a small 逮捕する increment of 投資 than for a large increment; so that, where 相当な changes are in 見解（をとる）, we must be guided by the 普通の／平均（する） value of the multiplier based on the 普通の／平均（する） ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する over the 範囲 in question.
Mr Kahn has 診察するd the probable quantitative result of such factors as these in 確かな hypothetical special 事例／患者s. But, 明確に, it is not possible to carry any generalisation very far. One can only say, for example, that a typical modern community would probably tend to 消費する not much いっそう少なく than 80 per cent of any increment of real income, if it were a の近くにd system with the 消費 of the 失業した paid for by 移転s from the 消費 of other 消費者s, so that the multiplier after 許すing for 相殺するs would not be much いっそう少なく than 5. In a country, however, where foreign 貿易（する） accounts for, say, 20 per cent of 消費 and where the 失業した receive out of 貸付金s or their 同等（の） up to, say, 50 per cent of their normal 消費 when in work, the multiplier may 落ちる as low as 2 or 3 times the 雇用 供給するd by a 明確な／細部 new 投資. Thus a given fluctuation of 投資 will be associated with a much いっそう少なく violent fluctuation of 雇用 in a country in which foreign 貿易（する） plays a large part and 失業 救済 is 財政／金融d on a larger 規模 out of borrowing (as was the 事例／患者, e.g. in 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain in 1931), than in a country in which these factors are いっそう少なく important (as in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs in 1932).
It is, however, to the general 原則 of the multiplier to which
we have to look for an explanation of how fluctuations in the 量 of
投資, which are a comparatively small 割合 of the 国家の
income, are 有能な of 生成するing fluctuations in aggregate 雇用
and income so much greater in amplitude than themselves.
IV
The discussion has been carried on, so far, on the basis of a change in aggregate 投資 which has been foreseen 十分に in 前進する for the 消費 産業s to 前進する pari passu with the 資本／首都-goods 産業s without more 騒動 to the price of 消費-goods than is consequential, in 条件s of 減少（する）ing returns, on an 増加する in the 量 which is produced.
In general, however, we have to take account of the 事例／患者 where the 率先 comes from an 増加する in the 生産（高） of the 資本／首都-goods 産業s which was not fully foreseen. It is obvious that an 率先 of this description only produces its 十分な 影響 on 雇用 over a period of time. I have 設立する, however, in discussion that this obvious fact often gives rise to some 混乱 between the 論理（学）の theory of the multiplier, which 持つ／拘留するs good continuously, without time-lag, at all moments of time, and the consequences of an 拡大 in the 資本／首都-goods 産業s which take 漸進的な 影響, 支配する to time-lag and only after an interval.
The 関係 between these two things can be （疑いを）晴らすd up by pointing out, firstly that an unforeseen, or imperfectly foreseen, 拡大 in the 資本／首都-goods 産業s does not have an instantaneous 影響 of equal 量 on the aggregate of 投資 but 原因（となる）s a 漸進的な 増加する of the latter; and, secondly, that it may 原因（となる） a 一時的な 出発 of the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する away from its normal value, followed, however, by a 漸進的な return to it.
Thus an 拡大 in the 資本／首都-goods 産業s 原因（となる）s a 一連の increments in aggregate 投資 occurring in 連続する periods over an interval of time, and a 一連の values of the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する in these 連続する periods which 異なる both from what the values would have been if the 拡大 had been foreseen and from what they will be when the community has settled 負かす／撃墜する to a new 安定した level of aggregate 投資. But in every interval of time the theory of the multiplier 持つ／拘留するs good in the sense that the increment of aggregate 需要・要求する is equal to the 製品 of the increment of aggregate 投資 and the multiplier as 決定するd by the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する.
The explanation of these two 始める，決めるs of facts can be seen most 明確に by taking the extreme 事例／患者 where the 拡大 of 雇用 in the 資本／首都-goods 産業s is so 完全に unforeseen that in the first instance there is no 増加する whatever in the 生産（高） of 消費-goods. In this event the 成果／努力s of those newly 雇うd in the 資本／首都-goods 産業s to 消費する a 割合 of their 増加するd incomes will raise the prices of 消費-goods until a 一時的な equilibrium between 需要・要求する and 供給（する） has been brought about partly by the high prices 原因（となる）ing a 延期 of 消費, partly by a 議席数是正 of income in favour of the saving classes as an 影響 of the 増加するd 利益（をあげる）s resulting from the higher prices, and partly by the higher prices 原因（となる）ing a depletion of 在庫／株s. So far as the balance is 回復するd by a 延期 of 消費 there is a 一時的な 削減 of the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する, i.e. of the multiplier itself, and in so far as there is a depletion of 在庫／株s, aggregate 投資 増加するs for the time 存在 by いっそう少なく than the increment of 投資 in the 資本／首都-goods 産業s,¾i.e. the thing to be multiplied does not 増加する by the 十分な increment of 投資 in the 資本／首都-goods 産業s. As time goes on, however, the 消費-goods 産業s adjust themselves to the new 需要・要求する, so that when the deferred 消費 is enjoyed, the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する rises 一時的に above its normal level, to 補償する for the extent to which it 以前 fell below it, and 結局 returns to its normal level; whilst the 復古／返還 of 在庫／株s to their previous 人物／姿／数字 原因（となる）s the increment of aggregate 投資 to be 一時的に greater than the increment of 投資 in the 資本／首都-goods 産業s (the increment of working 資本／首都 corresponding to the greater 生産（高） also having 一時的に the same 影響).
The fact that an unforeseen change only 演習s its 十分な 影響 on
雇用 over a period of time is important in 確かな 状況s;¾in
particular it plays a part in the 分析 of the 貿易（する） cycle (on lines
such as I followed in my Treatise on Money). But it does not in
any way 影響する／感情 the significance of the theory of the multiplier as 始める，決める
前へ／外へ in this 一時期／支部; nor （判決などを）下す it inapplicable as an 指示する人（物） of the
total 利益 to 雇用 to be 推定する／予想するd from an 拡大 in the 資本／首都.
goods 産業s. Moreover, except in 条件s where the 消費
産業s are already working almost at capacity so that an 拡大
of 生産（高） 要求するs an 拡大 of 工場／植物 and not 単に the more 集中的な
雇用 of the 存在するing 工場／植物, there is no 推論する／理由 to suppose that more
than a 簡潔な／要約する interval of time nced elapse before 雇用 in the 消費
産業s is 前進するing pari passu with 雇用 in the 資本／首都-goods 産業s with the multiplier operating
近づく its normal 人物／姿／数字.
V
We have seen above that the greater the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する, the greater the multiplier, and hence the greater the 騒動 to 雇用 corresponding to a given change in 投資. This might seem to lead to the paradoxical 結論 that a poor community in which saving is a very small 割合 of income will be more 支配する to violent fluctuations than a 豊富な community where saving is a larger 割合 of income and the multiplier その結果 smaller.
This 結論, however, would overlook the distinction between the 影響s of the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する and those of the 普通の／平均（する） propensity to 消費する. For whilst a high ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する 伴う／関わるs a larger proportionate 影響 from a given 百分率 change in 投資, the 絶対の 影響 will, にもかかわらず, be small if the 普通の／平均（する） propensity to 消費する is also high. This may be illustrated as follows by a 数値／数字による example.
Let us suppose that a community's propensity to 消費する is such that, so long as its real income does not 越える the 生産（高） from 雇うing 5,000,000 men on its 存在するing 資本／首都 器具／備品, it 消費するs the whole of its income; that of the 生産（高） of the next 100,000 付加 men 雇うd it 消費するs 99 per cent, of the next 100,000 after that 98 per cent, of the third 100,000 97 per cent and so on; and that 10,000,000 men 雇うd 代表するs 十分な 雇用. It follows from this that, when 5,000,000 + n 100,000 men are 雇うd, the multiplier at the 利ざや is 100/n, and [n(n + i)]/[2(50 + n)] per cent of the 国民所得 is 投資するd.
Thus when 5,200,000 men are 雇うd the multiplier is very large, すなわち 50, but 投資 is only a trifling 割合 of 現在の income, すなわち, 0.06 per cent; with the result that if 投資 落ちるs off by a large 割合, say about two-thirds, 雇用 will only 拒絶する／低下する to 5,100,000, i.e. by about 2 per cent. On the other 手渡す, when 9,000,000 men are 雇うd, the ごくわずかの multiplier is comparatively small, すなわち 2½, but 投資 is now a 相当な 割合 of 現在の income, すなわち, 9 per cent; with the result that if 投資 落ちるs by two-thirds, 雇用 will 拒絶する／低下する to 6,900,000, すなわち, by 19 per cent. In the 限界 where 投資 落ちるs off to 無, 雇用 will 拒絶する／低下する by about 4 per cent in the former 事例／患者, 反して in the latter 事例／患者 it will 拒絶する／低下する by 44 per cent.
In the above example, the poorer of the two communities under comparison is poorer by 推論する／理由 of under-雇用. But the same 推論する／理由ing 適用するs by 平易な adaptation if the poverty is 予定 to inferior 技術, technique or 器具／備品. Thus whilst the multiplier is larger in a poor community, the 影響 on 雇用 of fluctuations in 投資 will be much greater in a 豊富な community, assuming that in the latter 現在の 投資 代表するs a much larger 割合 of 現在の 生産（高）.
It is also obvious from the above that the 雇用 of a given number
of men on public 作品 will (on the 仮定／引き受けることs made) have a much larger
影響 on aggregate 雇用 at a time when there is 厳しい 失業,
than it will have later on when 十分な 雇用 is approached. In the above
example, if, at a time when 雇用 has fallen to 5,200,000, an 付加
100,000 men are 雇うd on public 作品, total 雇用 will rise to
6,400,000. But if 雇用 is already 9,000,000 when the 付加 100,000
men are taken on for public 作品, total 雇用 will only rise to 9,200,000.
Thus public 作品 even of doubtful 公共事業（料金）／有用性 may 支払う／賃金 for themselves over
and over again at a time of 厳しい 失業, if only from the 減らすd
cost of 救済 支出, 供給するd that we can assume that a smaller
割合 of income is saved when 失業 is greater; but they may
become a more doubtful proposition as a 明言する／公表する of 十分な 雇用 is approached.
その上に, if our 仮定／引き受けること is 訂正する that the ごくわずかの propensity
to 消費する 落ちるs off 刻々と as we approach 十分な 雇用, it follows
that it will become more and more troublesome to 安全な・保証する a その上の given
増加する of 雇用 by その上の 増加するing 投資. It should not
be difficult to 収集する a chart of the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する at
each 行う／開催する／段階 of a 貿易（する） cycle from the 統計（学） (if they were 利用できる)
of aggregate incorne and aggregate 投資 at 連続する dates. At 現在の,
however, our 統計（学） are not 正確な enough (or 収集するd 十分に
with this 明確な／細部 反対する in 見解（をとる）) to 許す us to infer more than 高度に
approximate 見積（る）s. The best for the 目的, of which I am aware, are
Mr Kuznets' 人物／姿／数字s for the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs (already referred to, p.103 above),
though they are, にもかかわらず, very 不安定な. Taken in 合同 with
見積（る）s of 国民所得 these 示唆する, for what they are 価値（がある）, both
a lower 人物／姿／数字 and a more stable 人物／姿／数字 for the 投資 multiplier than I should have 推定する／予想するd. If 選び出す／独身 years are taken in 孤立／分離,
the results look rather wild. But if they are grouped in pairs, the multiplier
seems to have been いっそう少なく than 3 and probably 公正に／かなり stable in the neighbourhood
of 2.5. This 示唆するs a ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する not 越えるing 60
to 70 per cent¾a 人物／姿／数字 やめる plausible
for the にわか景気, but surprisingly, and, in my judgment, improbably low for
the 低迷. It is possible, however, that the extreme 財政上の 保守主義
of 法人組織の／企業の 財政／金融 in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs, even during the 低迷, may account
for it. In other words, if, when 投資 is 落ちるing ひどく through
a 失敗 to 請け負う 修理s and 交替／補充s, 財政上の 準備／条項 is
made, にもかかわらず, in 尊敬（する）・点 of such wastage, the 影響 is to 妨げる
the rise in the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する which would have occurred
さもなければ. I 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑う that this factor may have played a 重要な part
in 悪化させるing the degree of the 最近の 低迷 in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs. On
the other 手渡す, it is possible that the 統計（学） somewhat overstate the
拒絶する／低下する in 投資, which is 申し立てられた／疑わしい to have fallen off by more than
75 per cent in 1932 compared with 1929, whilst 逮捕する '資本／首都 形式'
拒絶する／低下するd by more than 95 per cent;¾a
穏健な change in these 見積（る）s 存在 有能な of making a 相当な
difference to the multiplier.
VI
When involuntary 失業 存在するs, the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働 is やむを得ず いっそう少なく than the 公共事業（料金）／有用性 of the ごくわずかの 製品. Indeed it may be much いっそう少なく. For a man who has been long 失業した some 手段 of 労働, instead of 伴う／関わるing disutility, may have a 肯定的な 公共事業（料金）／有用性. If this is 受託するd, the above 推論する／理由ing shows how 'wasteful' 貸付金 支出 may にもかかわらず 濃厚にする the community on balance. Pyramid-building, 地震s, even wars may serve to 増加する wealth, if the education of our statesmen on the 原則s of the classical 経済的なs stands in the way of anything better.
It is curious how ありふれた sense, wriggling for an escape from absurd 結論s, has been apt to reach a preference for wholly 'wasteful' forms of 貸付金 支出 rather than for partly wasteful forms, which, because they are not wholly wasteful, tend to be 裁判官d on strict '商売／仕事' 原則s. For example, 失業 救済 財政／金融d by 貸付金s is more readily 受託するd than the 財政／金融ing of 改良s at a 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金 below the 現在の 率 of 利益／興味; whilst the form of digging 穴を開けるs in the ground known as gold-採掘, which not only 追加するs nothing whatever to the real wealth of the world but 伴う／関わるs the disutility of 労働, is the most 許容できる of all 解答s.
If the 財務省 were to fill old 瓶／封じ込めるs with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to 私的な 企業 on 井戸／弁護士席-tried 原則s of laissez-faire to dig the 公式文書，認めるs up again (the 権利 to do so 存在 得るd, of course, by tendering for 賃貸し（する）s of the 公式文書，認める-耐えるing 領土), there need be no more 失業 and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its 資本／首都 wealth also, would probably become a good 取引，協定 greater than it 現実に is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing.
The analogy between this expedient and the goldmines of the real world is 完全にする. At periods when gold is 利用できる at suitable depths experience shows that the real wealth of the world 増加するs 速く; and when but little of it is so 利用できる our wealth 苦しむs stagnation or 拒絶する／低下する. Thus gold-地雷s are of the greatest value and importance to civilisation. Just as wars have been the only form of large-規模 貸付金 支出 which statesmen have thought 正当と認められる, so gold-採掘 is the only pretext for digging 穴を開けるs in the ground which has recommended itself to 銀行業者s as sound 財政／金融; and each of these activities has played its part in 進歩¾failing something better. To について言及する a 詳細（に述べる）, the 傾向 in 低迷s for the price of gold to rise ーに関して／ーの点でs of 労働 and 構成要素s 援助（する）s 結局の 回復, because it 増加するs the depth at which gold-digging 支払う／賃金s and lowers the 最小限 grade of 鉱石 which is payable.
In 新規加入 to the probable 影響 of 増加するd 供給（する）s of gold on the 率 of 利益／興味, gold-採掘 is for two 推論する／理由s a 高度に practical form of 投資, if we are 妨げるd from 増加するing 雇用 by means which at the same time 増加する our 在庫／株 of useful wealth. In the first place, 借りがあるing to the 賭事ing attractions which it 申し込む／申し出s it is carried on without too の近くに a regard to the 判決，裁定 率 of 利益／興味. In the second place the result, すなわち, the 増加するd 在庫／株 of gold, does not, as in other 事例／患者s, have the 影響 of 減らすing its ごくわずかの 公共事業（料金）／有用性. Since the value of a house depends on its 公共事業（料金）／有用性, every house which is built serves to 減らす the 見込みのある rents obtainable from その上の house-building and therefore 少なくなるs the attraction of その上の 類似の 投資 unless the 率 of 利益／興味 is 落ちるing pari passu. But the fruits of gold-採掘 do not を煩う this disadvantage, and a check can only come through a rise of the 行う-部隊 ーに関して／ーの点でs of gold, which is not likely to occur unless and until 雇用 is 大幅に better. Moreover, there is no その後の 逆転する 影響 on account of 準備／条項 for 使用者 and 補足の costs, as in the 事例／患者 of いっそう少なく 持続する forms of wealth.
古代の Egypt was doubly fortunate, and doubtless 借りがあるd to this its fabled wealth, in that it 所有するd two activities, すなわち, pyramid-building as 井戸／弁護士席 as the search for the precious metals, the fruits of which, since they could not serve the needs of man by 存在 消費するd, did not stale with 豊富. The Middle Ages built cathedrals and sang dirges. Two pyramids, two 集まりs for the dead, are twice as good as one; but not so two 鉄道s from London to York. Thus we are so sensible, have schooled ourselves to so の近くに a 外見 of 慎重な financiers, taking careful thought before we 追加する to the '財政上の' 重荷（を負わせる）s of posterity by building them houses to live in, that we have no such 平易な escape from the sufferings of 失業. We have to 受託する them as an 必然的な result of 適用するing to the 行為／行う of the 明言する／公表する the maxims which are best calculated to '濃厚にする' an individual by enabling him to pile up （人命などを）奪う，主張するs to enjoyment which he does not ーするつもりである to 演習 at any 限定された time.
一時期／支部 11
I
When a man buys an 投資 or 資本／首都-資産, he 購入（する）s the 権利 to the 一連の 見込みのある returns, which he 推定する／予想するs to 得る from selling its 生産（高）, after deducting the running expenses of 得るing that 生産（高）, during the life of the 資産. This 一連の annuities Q 1 , Q 2 , . . . Q n it is convenient to call the 見込みのある 産する／生じる of the 投資.
Over against the 見込みのある 産する／生じる of the 投資 we have the 供給（する） price of the 資本／首都-資産, meaning by this, not the market-price at which an 資産 of the type in question can 現実に be 購入（する）d in the market, but the price which would just induce a 製造業者 newly to produce an 付加 部隊 of such 資産s, i.e. what is いつかs called its 交替／補充 cost . The relation between the 見込みのある 産する／生じる of a 資本／首都-資産 and its 供給（する） price or 交替／補充 cost, i.e. the relation between the 見込みのある 産する／生じる of one more 部隊 of that type of 資本／首都 and the cost of producing that 部隊, furnishes us with the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 of that type. More 正確に, I define the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 as 存在 equal to that 率 of 割引 which would make the 現在の value of the 一連の annuities given by the returns 推定する／予想するd from the 資本／首都-資産 during its life just equal to its 供給（する） price. This gives us the ごくわずかの efficiencies of particular types of 資本／首都-資産s. The greatest of these ごくわずかの efficiencies can then be regarded as the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 in general.
The reader should 公式文書，認める that the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 is here defined ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 期待 of 産する／生じる and of the 現在の 供給（する） price of the 資本／首都-資産. It depends on the 率 of return 推定する／予想するd to be obtainable on money if it were 投資するd in a newly produced 資産; not on the historical result of what an 投資 has 産する／生じるd on its 初めの cost if we look 支援する on its 記録，記録的な／記録する after its life is over.
If there is an 増加するd 投資 in any given type of 資本／首都 during any period of time, the ごくわずかの efficiency of that type of 資本／首都 will 減らす as the 投資 in it is 増加するd, partly because the 見込みのある 産する／生じる will 落ちる as the 供給（する） of that type of 資本／首都 is 増加するd, and partly because, as a 支配する, 圧力 on the 施設s for producing that type of 資本／首都 will 原因（となる） its 供給（する） price to 増加する; the second of these factors 存在 usually the more important in producing equilibrium in the short run, but the longer the period in 見解（をとる） the more does the first factor take its place. Thus for each type of 資本／首都 we can build up a schedule, showing by how much 投資 in it will have to 増加する within the period, in order that its ごくわずかの efficiency should 落ちる to any given 人物／姿／数字. We can then aggregate these schedules for all the different types of 資本／首都, so as to 供給する a schedule relating the 率 of aggregate 投資 to the corresponding ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 in general which that 率 of 投資 will 設立する. We shall call this the 投資 需要・要求する-schedule; or, alternatively, the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都.
Now it is obvious that the actual 率 of 現在の 投資 will be 押し進めるd to the point where there is no longer any class of 資本／首都-資産 of which the ごくわずかの efficiency 越えるs the 現在の 率 of 利益／興味. In other words, the 率 of 投資 will be 押し進めるd to the point on the 投資 需要・要求する-schedule where the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 in general is equal to the market 率 of 利益／興味.
The same thing can also be 表明するd as follows. If Q r is the 見込みのある 産する／生じる from an 資産 at time r , and d r is the 現在の value of ｣1 deferred r years at the 現在の 率 of 利益／興味, S Q r d r is the 需要・要求する price of the 投資; and 投資 will be carried to the point where S Q r d r becomes equal to the 供給（する） price of the 投資 as defined above. If, on the other 手渡す, S Q r d r 落ちるs short of the 供給（する） price, there will be no 現在の 投資 in the 資産 in question.
It follows that the 誘導 to 投資する depends partly on the
投資 需要・要求する-schedule and partly on the 率 of 利益／興味.
Only at the 結論 of 調書をとる／予約する IV will it be possible to take a
包括的な 見解（をとる） of the factors 決定するing the 率 of
投資 in their actual 複雑さ. I would, however, ask the
reader to 公式文書，認める at once that neither the knowledge of an 資産's
見込みのある 産する／生じる nor the knowledge of the ごくわずかの efficiency of
the 資産 enables us to deduce either the 率 of 利益／興味 or the
現在の value of the 資産. We must ascertain the 率 of
利益／興味 from some other source, and only then can we value the
資産 by 'capitalising' its 見込みのある 産する／生じる.
II
How is the above 鮮明度／定義 of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 関係のある to ありふれた usage? The ごくわずかの 生産性 or 産する／生じる or Efficiency or 公共事業（料金）／有用性 of 資本／首都 are familiar 条件 which we have all frequently used. But it is not 平易な by searching the literature of 経済的なs to find a （疑いを）晴らす 声明 of what 経済学者s have usually ーするつもりであるd by these 条件.
There are at least three ambiguities to （疑いを）晴らす up. There is, to begin with, the ambiguity whether we are 関心d with the increment of physical 製品 per 部隊 of time 予定 to the 雇用 of one more physical 部隊 of 資本／首都, or with the increment of value 予定 to the 雇用 of one more value 部隊 of 資本／首都. The former 伴う／関わるs difficulties as to the 鮮明度／定義 of the physical 部隊 of 資本／首都, which I believe to be both insoluble and unnecessary. It is, of course, possible to say that ten labourers will raise more wheat from a given area when they are in a position to make use of 確かな 付加 machines; but I know no means of 減ずるing this to an intelligible arithmetical 割合 which does not bring in values. にもかかわらず many discussions of this 支配する seem to be おもに 関心d with the physical 生産性 of 資本／首都 in some sense, though the writers fail to make themselves （疑いを）晴らす.
Secondly, there is the question whether the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 is some 絶対の 量 or a 割合. The 状況s in which it is used and the practice of 扱う／治療するing it as 存在 of the same dimension as the 率 of 利益／興味 seem to 要求する that it should be a 割合. Yet it is not usually made （疑いを）晴らす what the two 条件 of the 割合 are supposed to be.
Finally, there is the distinction, the neglect of which has been the main 原因（となる） of 混乱 and 誤解, between the increment of value obtainable by using an 付加 量 of 資本／首都 in the 存在するing 状況／情勢, and the 一連の increments which it is 推定する／予想するd to 得る over the whole life of the 付加 資本／首都 資産; ｾ i.e. the distinction between Q 1 and the 完全にする series Q 1 , Q 2 , . . . Q r , . . . .This 伴う／関わるs the whole question of the place of 期待 in 経済的な theory. Most discussions of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 seem to 支払う／賃金 no attention to any member of the series except Q 1 . Yet this cannot be 合法的 except in a Static theory, for which all the Q 's are equal. The ordinary theory of 配当, where it is assumed that 資本／首都 is getting now its ごくわずかの 生産性 (in some sense or other), is only valid in a 静止している 明言する／公表する. The aggregate 現在の return to 資本／首都 has no direct 関係 to its ごくわずかの efficiency; whilst its 現在の return at the 利ざや of 生産／産物 (i.e. the return to 資本／首都 which enters into the 供給（する） price of 生産（高）) is its ごくわずかの 使用者 cost, which also has no の近くに 関係 with its ごくわずかの efficiency.
There is, as I have said above, a remarkable 欠如（する） of any （疑いを）晴らす
account of the 事柄. At the same time I believe that the
鮮明度／定義 which I have given above is 公正に／かなり の近くに to what
Marshall ーするつもりであるd to mean by the 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語. The phrase which Marshall
himself uses is 'ごくわずかの 逮捕する efficiency' of a factor of
生産／産物; or, alternatively, the 'ごくわずかの 公共事業（料金）／有用性 of 資本／首都'.
The に引き続いて is a 要約 of the most 関連した passage which I
can find in his
原則s
(6th ed. pp. 519
-
520). I have run together some
非，不，無-連続した 宣告，判決s to 伝える the gist of what he says:
In a 確かな factory an extra ｣100 価値（がある） of 機械／機構 can be
適用するd so as not to 伴う／関わる any other extra expense, and so as
to 追加する 毎年 ｣3 価値（がある） to the 逮捕する 生産（高） of the factory after
許すing for its own wear and 涙／ほころび. If the 投資家s of 資本／首都
押し進める it into every 占領／職業 in which it seems likely to 伸び（る） a
high reward; and if, after this has been done and equilibrium has
been 設立する, it still 支払う／賃金s and only just 支払う／賃金s to 雇う this
機械／機構, we can infer from this fact that the 年一回の 率 of
利益／興味 is 3 per cent. But illustrations of this 肉親，親類d 単に
示す part of the 活動／戦闘 of the 広大な／多数の／重要な 原因（となる）s which 治める／統治する
value. They cannot be made into a theory of 利益／興味, any more
than into a theory of 給料, without 推論する／理由ing in a
circle. . . Suppose that the 率 of 利益／興味 is 3 per
cent. per 年 on perfectly good 安全; and that the
hat-making 貿易（する） 吸収するs a 資本／首都 of one million 続けざまに猛撃するs. This
暗示するs that the hat-making 貿易（する） can turn the whole million
続けざまに猛撃するs' 価値（がある） of 資本／首都 to so good account that they would 支払う／賃金 3
per cent. per 年 逮捕する for the use of it rather than go without any of it. There may be
機械／機構 which the 貿易（する） would have 辞退するd to dispense with if
the 率 of 利益／興味 had been 20 per cent. per 年. If the 率
had been 10 per cent., more would have been used; if it had been
6 per cent., still more; if 4 per cent. still more; and finally,
the 率 存在 3 per cent., they use more still. When they have
this 量, the ごくわずかの 公共事業（料金）／有用性 of the 機械／機構, i.e. the
公共事業（料金）／有用性 of that 機械／機構 which it is only just 価値（がある） their while
to 雇う, is 手段d by 3 per cent.
It is evident from the above that Marshall was 井戸／弁護士席 aware that we are 伴う／関わるd in a circular argument if we try to 決定する along these lines what the 率 of 利益／興味 現実に is. In this passage he appears to 受託する the 見解（をとる） 始める，決める 前へ／外へ above, that the 率 of 利益／興味 決定するs the point to which new 投資 will be 押し進めるd, given the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都. If the 率 of 利益／興味 is 3 per cent, this means that no one will 支払う／賃金 ｣100 for a machine unless he hopes その為に to 追加する ｣3 to his 年次の 逮捕する 生産（高） after 許すing for costs and 価値低下. But we shall see in 一時期／支部 14 that in other passages Marshall was いっそう少なく 用心深い ｾ though still 製図／抽選 支援する when his argument was 主要な him on to 疑わしい ground.
Although he does not call it the 'ごくわずかの efficiency of
資本／首都', Professor Irving Fisher has given in his
Theory of
利益／興味
(1930) a 鮮明度／定義 of what he calls 'the 率 of
return over cost' which is 同一の with my 鮮明度／定義. 'The
率 of return over cost', he 令状s, 'is that 率 which, 雇うd in 計算するing the 現在の 価値（がある） of
all the costs and the 現在の 価値（がある） of all the returns, will make
these two equal.' Professor Fisher explains that the extent of
投資 in any direction will depend on a comparison between
the 率 of return over cost and the 率 of 利益／興味. To induce
new 投資 'the 率 of return over cost must 越える the 率 of 利益／興味'.
'This new magnitude (or factor) in our 熟考する／考慮する plays the central
r?e on the 投資 適切な時期 味方する of 利益／興味
theory.' Thus Professor Fisher uses his '率 of return over cost in the
same sense and for 正確に the same 目的 as I 雇う 'the
ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都'.
III
The most important 混乱 関心ing the meaning and significance of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 has 続いて起こるd on the 失敗 to see that it depends on the 見込みのある 産する／生じる of 資本／首都, and not 単に on its 現在の 産する／生じる. This can be best illustrated by pointing out the 影響 on the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 of an 期待 of changes in the 見込みのある cost of 生産／産物, whether these changes are 推定する／予想するd to come from changes in 労働 cost, i.e. in the 行う-部隊, or from 発明s and new technique. The 生産（高） from 器具／備品 produced to-day will have to compete, in the course of its life, with the 生産（高） from 器具／備品 produced subsequently, perhaps at a lower 労働 cost, perhaps by an 改善するd technique, which is content with a lower price for its 生産（高） and will be 増加するd in 量 until the price of its 生産（高） has fallen to the lower 人物／姿／数字 with which it is content. Moreover, the entrepreneur's 利益（をあげる） (ーに関して／ーの点でs of money) from 器具／備品, old or new, will be 減ずるd, if all 生産（高） comes to be produced more cheaply. In so far as such 開発s are foreseen as probable, or even as possible, the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 produced to-day is 適切な 減らすd.
This is the factor through which the 期待 of changes in the value of money 影響（力）s the 容積／容量 of 現在の 生産（高）. The 期待 of a 落ちる in the value of money 刺激するs 投資, and hence 雇用 一般に, because it raises the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都, i.e. the 投資 需要・要求する-schedule; and the 期待 of a rise in the value of money is depressing, because it lowers the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都.
This is the truth which lies behind Professor Irving Fisher's theory of what he 初めは called '評価 and 利益／興味' ｾ the distinction between the money 率 of 利益／興味 and the real 率 of 利益／興味 where the latter is equal to the former after 是正 for changes in the value of money. It is difficult to make sense of this theory as 明言する／公表するd, because it is not （疑いを）晴らす whether the change in the value of money is or is not assumed to be foreseen. There is no escape from the 窮地 that, if it is not foreseen, there will be no 影響 on 現在の 事件／事情／状勢s; whilst, if it is foreseen, the prices of 存在するing goods will be forthwith so adjusted that the advantages of 持つ／拘留するing money and of 持つ／拘留するing goods are again equalised, and it will be too late for 支えるもの／所有者s of money to 伸び（る） or to 苦しむ a change in the 率 of 利益／興味 which will 相殺する the 見込みのある change during the period of the 貸付金 in the value of the money lent. For the 窮地 is not 首尾よく escaped by Professor Pigou's expedient of supposing that the 見込みのある change in the value of money is foreseen by one 始める，決める of people but not foreseen by another.
The mistake lies in supposing that it is the 率 of 利益／興味 on which 見込みのある changes in the value of money will 直接／まっすぐに 反応する, instead of the ごくわずかの efficiency of a given 在庫／株 of 資本／首都. The prices of 存在するing 資産s will always adjust themselves to changes in 期待 関心ing the 見込みのある value of money. The significance of such changes in 期待 lies in their 影響 on the 準備完了 to produce new 資産s through their reaction on the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都. The 刺激するing 影響 of the 期待 of higher prices is 予定, not to its raising the 率 of 利益／興味 (that would be a paradoxical way of 刺激するing 生産（高） ｾ in so far as the 率 of 利益／興味 rises, the 刺激するing 影響 is to that extent 相殺する), but to its raising the ごくわずかの efficiency of a given 在庫／株 of 資本／首都. If the 率 of 利益／興味 were to rise pari passu with the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都, there would be no 刺激するing 影響 from the 期待 of rising prices. For the 刺激 to 生産（高） depends on the ごくわずかの efficiency of a given 在庫／株 of 資本／首都 rising 比較して to the 率 of 利益／興味. Indeed Professor Fisher's theory could be best re-written ーに関して／ーの点でs of a 'real 率 of 利益／興味' defined as 存在 the 率 of 利益／興味 which would have to 支配する, その結果 on a change in the 明言する／公表する of 期待 as to the 未来 value of money, in order that this change should have no 影響 on 現在の 生産（高）. It is 価値（がある） 公式文書，認めるing that an 期待 of a 未来 落ちる in the 率 of 利益／興味 will have the 影響 of lowering the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都; since it means that the 生産（高） from 器具／備品 produced to-day will have to compete during part of its life with the 生産（高） from 器具／備品 which is content with a lower return. This 期待 will have no 広大な／多数の／重要な depressing 影響, since the 期待s, which are held 関心ing the コンビナート／複合体 of 率s of 利益／興味 for さまざまな 条件 which will 支配する in the 未来, will be 部分的に／不公平に 反映するd in the コンビナート／複合体 of 率s of 利益／興味 which 支配する to-day. にもかかわらず there may be some depressing 影響, since the 生産（高） from 器具／備品 produced to-day, which will 現れる に向かって the end of the life of this 器具／備品, may have to compete with the 生産（高） of much younger 器具／備品 which is content with a lower return because of the lower 率 of 利益／興味 which 支配するs for periods その後の to the end of the life of 器具／備品 produced to-day.
It is important to understand the dependence of the ごくわずかの
efficiency of a given 在庫／株 of 資本／首都 on changes in 期待,
because it is 主として this dependence which （判決などを）下すs the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 支配する
to the somewhat violent fluctuations which are the explanation of
the 貿易（する） cycle. In 一時期／支部 22 below we shall show that the
succession of にわか景気 and 低迷 can be 述べるd and analysed in
条件 of the fluctuations of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都
比較して to the 率 of 利益／興味.
IV
Two types of 危険 影響する／感情 the 容積／容量 of 投資 which have not 一般的に been distinguished, but which it is important to distinguish. The first is the entrepreneur's or borrower's 危険 and arises out of 疑問s in his own mind as to the probability of his 現実に 収入 the 見込みのある 産する／生じる for which he hopes. If a man is 投機・賭けるing his own money, this is the only 危険 which is 関連した.
But where a system of borrowing and lending 存在するs, by which I mean the ranting of 貸付金s with a 利ざや of real or personal 安全, a second type of 危険 is 関連した which we may call the 貸す人's 危険. This may be 予定 either to moral hazard, i.e. voluntary default or other means of escape, かもしれない lawful, from the fulfilment of the 義務, or to the possible insufficiency of the 利ざや of 安全, i.e. involuntary default 予定 to the 失望 of 期待. A third source of 危険 might be 追加するd, すなわち, a possible 逆の change in the value of the 通貨の 基準 which （判決などを）下すs a money-貸付金 to this extent いっそう少なく 安全な・保証する than a real 資産; though all or most of this should be already 反映するd, and therefore 吸収するd, in the price of 持続する real 資産s.
Now the first type of 危険 is, in a sense, a real social cost, though susceptible to diminution by 普通の／平均（する）ing 同様に as by an 増加するd 正確 of foresight. The second, however, is a pure 新規加入 to the cost of 投資 which would not 存在する if the borrower and 貸す人 were the same person. Moreover, it 伴う／関わるs in part a duplication of a 割合 of the entrepreneur's 危険, which is 追加するd twice to the pure 率 of 利益／興味 to give the 最小限 見込みのある 産する／生じる which will induce the 投資. For if a 投機・賭ける is a risky one, the borrower will 要求する a wider 利ざや between his 期待 of 産する／生じる and the 率 of 利益／興味 at which he will think it 価値（がある） his while to borrow; whilst the very same 推論する／理由 will lead the 貸す人 to 要求する a wider 利ざや between what he 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金s and the pure 率 of 利益／興味 ーするために induce him to lend (except where the borrower is so strong and 豊富な that he is in a position to 申し込む／申し出 an exceptional 利ざや of 安全). The hope of a very favourable 結果, which may balance the 危険 in the mind of the borrower, is not 利用できる to solace the 貸す人.
This duplication of allowance for a 部分 of the 危険 has
not hitherto been 強調d, so far as I am aware; but it may be
important in 確かな circumstances. During a にわか景気 the popular
estimation of the magnitude of both these 危険s, both borrower's
危険 and 貸す人's 危険, is apt to become 異常に and
imprudently low.
V
The schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 is of 根底となる importance because it is おもに through this factor (much more than through the 率 of 利益／興味) that the 期待 of the 未来 影響（力）s the 現在の. The mistake of regarding the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 まず第一に／本来 ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 現在の 産する／生じる of 資本／首都 器具／備品, which would be 訂正する only in the static 明言する／公表する where there is no changing 未来 to 影響（力） the 現在の, has had the result of breaking the theoretical link between to-day and to-morrow. Even the 率 of 利益／興味 is, 事実上, a 現在の 現象; and if we 減ずる the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 to the same status, we 削減（する） ourselves off from taking any direct account of the 影響（力） of the 未来 in our 分析 of the 存在するing equilibrium.
The fact that the 仮定／引き受けることs of the static 明言する／公表する often underlie 現在の-day 経済的な theory, 輸入するs into it a large element of unreality. But the introduction of the 概念s of 使用者 cost and of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都, as defined above, will have the 影響, I think, of bringing it 支援する to reality, whilst 減ずるing to a 最小限 the necessary degree of adaptation.
It is by 推論する／理由 of the 存在 of 持続する 器具／備品 that the
経済的な 未来 is linked to the 現在の. It is, therefore,
consonant with, and agreeable to, our 幅の広い 原則s of
thought, that the 期待 of the 未来 should 影響する／感情 the
現在の through the 需要・要求する price for 持続する 器具／備品.
一時期／支部 12
I
We have seen in the previous 一時期／支部 that the 規模 of 投資 depends on the relation between the 率 of 利益／興味 and the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 corresponding to different 規模s of 現在の 投資, whilst the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 depends on the relation between the 供給（する） price of a 資本／首都-資産 and its 見込みのある 産する／生じる. In this 一時期／支部 we shall consider in more 詳細（に述べる） some of the factors which 決定する the 見込みのある 産する／生じる of an 資産.
The considerations upon which 期待s of 見込みのある
産する／生じるs are based are partly 存在するing facts which we can assume to
be known more or いっそう少なく for 確かな , and partly 未来 events which
can only be 予測（する）d with more or いっそう少なく 信用／信任. Amongst the
first may be について言及するd the 存在するing 在庫／株 of さまざまな types of
資本／首都-資産s and of 資本／首都-資産s in general and the strength
of the 存在するing 消費者s' 需要・要求する for goods which 要求する for
their efficient 生産／産物 a 比較して larger 援助 from
資本／首都. Amongst the latter are 未来 changes in the type and
量 of the 在庫／株 of 資本／首都-資産s and in the tastes of the
消費者, the strength of 効果的な 需要・要求する from time to time
during the life of the 投資 under consideration, and the
changes in the 行う-部隊 ーに関して／ーの点でs of money which may occur during
its life. We may sum up the 明言する／公表する of psychological 期待
which covers the latter as 存在 the 明言する／公表する of long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待;ｾas distinguished from the short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語
期待 upon the basis of which a 生産者 見積（る）s what he
will get for a 製品 when it is finished if he decides to begin
producing it to-day with the 存在するing 工場／植物, which we 診察するd in
一時期／支部 5.
II
It would be foolish, in forming our 期待s, to attach 広大な／多数の／重要な 負わせる to 事柄s which are very uncertain. It is reasonable, therefore, to be guided to a かなりの degree by the facts about which we feel somewhat 確信して, even though they may be いっそう少なく decisively 関連した to the 問題／発行する than other facts about which our knowledge is vague and scanty. For this 推論する／理由 the facts of the 存在するing 状況／情勢 enter, in a sense 不均衡な, into the 形式 of our long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待s; our usual practice 存在 to take the 存在するing 状況／情勢 and to 事業／計画（する） it into the 未来, 修正するd only to the extent that we have more or いっそう少なく 限定された 推論する／理由s for 推定する／予想するing a change.
The 明言する／公表する of long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待, upon which our 決定／判定勝ち（する）s are based, does not 単独で depend, therefore, on the most probable 予測（する） we can make. It also depends on the 信用／信任 with which we make this 予測（する）ｾon how 高度に we 率 the 見込み of our best 予測（する） turning out やめる wrong. If we 推定する／予想する large changes but are very uncertain as to what 正確な form these changes will take, then our 信用／信任 will be weak.
The 明言する／公表する of 信用／信任, as they 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 it, is a 事柄 to which practical men always 支払う／賃金 the closest and most anxious attention. But 経済学者s have not analysed it carefully and have been content, as a 支配する, to discuss it in general 条件. In particular it has not been made （疑いを）晴らす that its relevance to 経済的な problems comes in through its important 影響（力） on the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都. There are not two separate factors 影響する／感情ing the 率 of 投資, すなわち, the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 and the 明言する／公表する of 信用／信任. The 明言する／公表する of 信用／信任 is 関連した because it is one of the major factors 決定するing the former, which is the same thing as the 投資 需要・要求する-schedule.
There is, however, not much to be said about the 明言する／公表する of 信用／信任 a priori. Our 結論s must おもに depend upon the actual 観察 of markets and 商売／仕事 psychology. This is the 推論する／理由 why the 続いて起こるing digression is on a different level of abstraction from most of this 調書をとる／予約する.
For convenience of 解説，博覧会 we shall assume in the に引き続いて
discussion of the 明言する／公表する of 信用／信任 that there are no changes
in the 率 of 利益／興味; and we shall 令状, throughout the
に引き続いて sections, as if changes in the values of 投資s
were 単独で 予定 to changes in the 期待 of their
見込みのある 産する／生じるs and not at all to changes in the 率 of
利益／興味 at which these 見込みのある 産する／生じるs are capitalised. The
影響 of changes in the 率 of 利益／興味 is, however, easily
superimposed on the 影響 of changes in the 明言する／公表する of 信用／信任.
III
The 優れた fact is the extreme precariousness of the basis of knowledge on which our 見積（る）s of 見込みのある 産する／生じる have to be made. Our knowledge of the factors which will 治める／統治する the 産する／生じる of an 投資 some years hence is usually very slight and often ごくわずかの. If we speak 率直に, we have to 収容する／認める that our basis of knowledge for 見積（る）ing the 産する／生じる ten years hence of a 鉄道, a 巡査 地雷, a 織物 factory, the 好意／親善 of a 特許 薬／医学, an 大西洋 liner, a building in the City of London 量s to little and いつかs to nothing; or even five years hence. In fact, those who 本気で 試みる／企てる to make any such 見積（る） are often so much in the 少数，小数派 that their behaviour does not 治める／統治する the market.
In former times, when 企業s were おもに owned by those who undertook them or by their friends and associates, 投資 depended on a 十分な 供給（する） of individuals of sanguine temperament and 建設的な impulses who 乗る，着手するd on 商売／仕事 as a way of life, not really relying on a 正確な 計算／見積り of 見込みのある 利益（をあげる）. The 事件／事情／状勢 was partly a 宝くじ, though with the ultimate result 大部分は 治める／統治するd by whether the abilities and character of the 経営者／支配人s were above or below the 普通の／平均（する）. Some would fail and some would 後継する. But even after the event no one would know whether the 普通の／平均（する） results ーに関して／ーの点でs of the sums 投資するd had 越えるd, equalled or fallen short of the 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing 率 of 利益／興味; though, if we 除外する the 開発／利用 of natural 資源s and monopolies, it is probable that the actual 普通の／平均（する） results of 投資s, even during periods of 進歩 and 繁栄, have disappointed the hopes which 誘発するd them. 商売／仕事 men play a mixed game of 技術 and chance, the 普通の／平均（する） results of which to the players are not known by those who take a 手渡す. If human nature felt no 誘惑 to take a chance, no satisfaction (利益（をあげる） apart) in 建設するing a factory, a 鉄道, a 地雷 or a farm, there might not be much 投資 単に as a result of 冷淡な 計算／見積り.
決定／判定勝ち（する）s to 投資する in 私的な 商売／仕事 of the old-fashioned
type were, however, 決定／判定勝ち（する）s 大部分は irrevocable, not only for
the community as a whole, but also for the individual. With the
分離 between 所有権 and 管理／経営 which 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるs to-day
and with the 開発 of organised 投資 markets, a new
factor of 広大な／多数の／重要な importance has entered in, which いつかs
容易にするs 投資 but いつかs 追加するs 大いに to the 不安定 of the system. In the absence of
安全 markets, there is no 反対する in frequently 試みる／企てるing to
revalue an 投資 to which we are committed. But the 在庫／株
交流 revalues many 投資s every day and the revaluations
give a たびたび（訪れる） 適切な時期 to the individual (though not to the
community as a whole) to 改訂する his かかわり合いs. It is as though
a 農業者, having tapped his 晴雨計 after breakfast, could
decide to 除去する his 資本／首都 from the farming 商売／仕事 between 10
and II in the morning and 再考する whether he should return to
it later in the week. But the daily revaluations of the 在庫／株
交流, though they are まず第一に／本来 made to 容易にする 移転s
of old 投資s between one individual and another, 必然的に
発揮する a 決定的な 影響（力） on the 率 of 現在の 投資. For
there is no sense in building up a new 企業 at a cost
greater than that at which a 類似の 存在するing 企業 can be
購入（する）d; whilst there is an 誘導 to spend on a new
事業／計画（する） what may seem an extravagant sum, if it can be floated
off on the 在庫／株 交流 at an 即座の 利益（をあげる）.
Thus 確かな classes of 投資 are 治める／統治するd by the 普通の／平均（する）
期待 of those who 取引，協定 on the 在庫／株 交流 as 明らかにする／漏らすd
in the price of 株, rather than by the 本物の 期待s
of the professional entrepreneur.
How then are these 高度に 重要な daily, even hourly,
revaluations of 存在するing 投資s carried out in practice?
In practice we have tacitly agreed, as a 支配する, to 落ちる 支援する on what is, in truth, a 条約. The essence of this 条約ｾthough it does not, of course, work out やめる so 簡単にｾlies in assuming that the 存在するing 明言する／公表する of 事件／事情／状勢s will continue 無期限に／不明確に, except in so far as we have 明確な／細部 推論する／理由s to 推定する／予想する a change. This does not mean that we really believe that the 存在するing 明言する／公表する of 事件／事情／状勢s will continue 無期限に／不明確に. We know from 広範囲にわたる experience that this is most ありそうもない. The actual results of an 投資 over a long 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 of years very seldom agree with the 初期の 期待. Nor can we rationalise our behaviour by arguing that to a man in a 明言する／公表する of ignorance errors in either direction are 平等に probable, so that there remains a mean actuarial 期待 based on equi-probabilities. For it can easily be shown that the 仮定／引き受けること of arithmetically equal probabilities based on a 明言する／公表する of ignorance leads to absurdities. We are assuming, in 影響, that the 存在するing market valuation, however arrived at, is uniquely 訂正する in relation to our 存在するing knowledge of the facts which will 影響（力） the 産する／生じる of the 投資, and that it will only change in 割合 to changes in this knowledge; though, philosophically speaking, it cannot be uniquely 訂正する, since our 存在するing knowledge does not 供給する a 十分な basis for a calculated mathematical 期待. In point of fact, all sorts of considerations enter into the market valuation which are in no way 関連した to the 見込みのある 産する／生じる.
にもかかわらず the above 従来の method of 計算／見積り will be 両立できる with a かなりの 手段 of 連続 and 安定 in our 事件／事情／状勢s, so long as we can rely on the 維持／整備 of the 条約.
For if there 存在する organised 投資 markets and if we can rely on the 維持／整備 of the 条約, an 投資家 can legitimately encourage himself with the idea that the only 危険 he runs is that of a 本物の change in the news over the 近づく 未来, as to the 見込み of which he can 試みる／企てる to form his own judgment, and which is ありそうもない to be very large. For, assuming that the 条約 持つ／拘留するs good, it is only these changes which can 影響する／感情 the value of his 投資, and he need not lose hiS sleep 単に because he has not any notion what his 投資 will be 価値（がある） ten years hence. Thus 投資 becomes reasonably '安全な' for the individual 投資家 over short periods, and hence over a succession of short periods however many, if he can 公正に／かなり rely on there 存在 no 決裂／故障 in the 条約 and on his therefore having an 適切な時期 to 改訂する his judgment and change his 投資, before there has been time for much to happen. 投資s which are '直す／買収する，八百長をするd' for the community are thus made 'liquid' for the individual.
It has been, I am sure, on the basis of some such 手続き as
this that our 主要な 投資 markets have been developed. But
it is not surprising that a 条約, in an 絶対の 見解（をとる） of
things so 独断的な, should have its weak points. It is its
precariousness which creates no small part of our 同時代の
problem of 安全な・保証するing 十分な 投資.
V
Some of the factors which accentuate this precariousness may be 簡潔に について言及するd.
(1) As a result of the 漸進的な 増加する in the 割合 of the 公正，普通株主権 in the community's aggregate 資本／首都 投資 which is owned by persons who do not manage and have no special knowledge of the circumstances, either actual or 見込みのある, of the 商売／仕事 in question, the element of real knowledge in the valuation of 投資s by whose who own them or 熟視する／熟考する 購入（する）ing them has 本気で 拒絶する／低下するd.
(2) Day-to-day fluctuations in the 利益（をあげる）s of 存在するing 投資s, which are 明白に of an ephemeral and 非，不，無-重要な character, tend to have an altogether 過度の, and even an absurd, 影響（力） on the market. It is said, for example, that the 株 of American companies which 製造（する） ice tend to sell at a higher price in summer when their 利益（をあげる）s are 季節的に high than in winter when no one wants ice. The 再発 of a bank-holiday may raise the market valuation of the British 鉄道 system by several million 続けざまに猛撃するs.
(3) A 従来の valuation which is 設立するd as the 結果 of the 集まり psychology of a large number of ignorant individuals is liable to change violently as the result ofa sudden fluctuation of opinion 予定 to factors which do not really make much difference to the 見込みのある 産する／生じる; since there will be no strong roots of 有罪の判決 to 持つ／拘留する it 安定した. In 異常な times in particular, when the hypothesis of an 不明確な／無期限の continuance of the 存在するing 明言する／公表する of 事件／事情／状勢s is いっそう少なく plausible than usual even though there are no 表明する grounds to 心配する a 限定された change, the market will be 支配する to waves of 楽観的な and 悲観的な 感情, which are unreasoning and yet in a sense 合法的 where no solid basis 存在するs for a reasonable 計算／見積り.
(4) But there is one feature in particular which deserves our attention. It might have been supposed that 競争 between 専門家 professionals, 所有するing judgment and knowledge beyond that of the 普通の／平均（する） 私的な 投資家, would 訂正する the vagaries of the ignorant individual left to himself. It happens, however, that the energies and 技術 of the professional 投資家 and 相場師 are おもに 占領するd さもなければ. For most of these persons are, in fact, 大部分は 関心d, not with making superior long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 予測（する）s of the probable 産する／生じる of an 投資 over its whole life, but with 予知するing changes in the 従来の basis of valuation a short time ahead of the general public. They are 関心d, not with what an 投資 is really 価値（がある） to a man who buys it 'for keeps', but with what the market will value it at, under the 影響（力） of 集まり psychology, three months or a year hence. Moreover, this behaviour is not the 結果 of a wrong-長，率いるd propensity. It is an 必然的な result of an 投資 market organised along the lines 述べるd. For it is not sensible to 支払う／賃金 25 for an 投資 of which you believe the 見込みのある 産する／生じる to 正当化する a value of 30, if you also believe that the market will value it at 20 three months hence.
Thus the professional 投資家 is 軍隊d to 関心 himself with the 予期 of 差し迫った changes, in the news or in the atmosphere, of the 肉親，親類d by which experience shows that the 集まり psychology of the market is most 影響（力）d. This is the 必然的な result of 投資 markets organised with a 見解（をとる） to いわゆる 'liquidity'. Of the maxims of 正統派の 財政／金融 非，不，無, surely, is more anti-social than the fetish of liquidity, the doctrine that it is a 肯定的な virtue on the part of 投資 会・原則s to concentrate their 資源s upon the 持つ／拘留するing of 'liquid' 安全s. It forgets that there is no such thing as liquidity of 投資 for the community as a whole. The social 反対する of 技術d 投資 should be to 敗北・負かす the dark 軍隊s of time and ignorance which envelop our 未来. The actual, 私的な 反対する of the most 技術d 投資 to-day is 'to （警官の）巡回区域，受持ち区域 the gun', as the Americans so 井戸／弁護士席 表明する it, to outwit the （人が）群がる, and to pass the bad, or depreciating, half-栄冠を与える to the other fellow.
This 戦う／戦い of wits to 心配する the basis of 従来の valuation a few months hence, rather than the 見込みのある 産する／生じる of an 投資 over a long 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 of years, does not even 要求する gulls amongst the public to 料金d the maws of the professional;ｾit can be played by professionals amongst themselves. Nor is it necessary that anyone should keep his simple 約束 in the 従来の basis of valuation having any 本物の long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 有効性，効力. For it is, so to speak, a game of Snap, of Old Maid, of Musical 議長，司会を務めるsｾa pastime in which he is 勝利者 who says Snap neither too soon nor too late, who passed the Old Maid to his 隣人 before the game is over, who 安全な・保証するs a 議長，司会を務める for himself when the music stops. These games can be played with zest and enjoyment, though all the players know that it is the Old Maid which is 広まる, or that when the music stops some of the players will find themselves unseated.
Or, to change the metaphor わずかに, professional 投資 may be に例えるd to those newspaper 競争s in which the competitors have to 選ぶ out the six prettiest 直面するs from a hundred photographs, the prize 存在 awarded to the competitor whose choice most nearly corresponds to the 普通の／平均（する） preferences of the competitors as a whole; so that each competitor has to 選ぶ, not those 直面するs which he himself finds prettiest, but those which he thinks likeliest to catch the fancy of the other competitors, all of whom are looking at the problem from the same point of 見解（をとる）. It is not a 事例／患者 of choosing those which, to the best of one's judgment, are really the prettiest, nor even those which 普通の／平均（する） opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have reached the third degree where we 充てる our 知能s to 心配するing what 普通の／平均（する） opinion 推定する／予想するs the 普通の／平均（する） opinion to be. And there are some, I believe, who practise the fourth, fifth and higher degrees.
If the reader interjects that there must surely be large 利益（をあげる）s to be 伸び（る）d from the other players in the long run by a 技術d individual who, unperturbed by the 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing pastime, continues to 購入（する） 投資s on the best 本物の long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待s he can でっちあげる，人を罪に陥れる, he must be answered, first of all, that there are, indeed, such serious-minded individuals and that it makes a 広大な difference to an 投資 market whether or not they predominate in their 影響（力） over the game-players. But we must also 追加する that there are several factors which jeopardise the predominance of such individuals in modern 投資 markets. 投資 based on 本物の long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待 is so difficult to-day as to be scarcely practicable. He who 試みる／企てるs it must surely lead much more laborious days and run greater 危険s than he who tries to guess better than the （人が）群がる how thc （人が）群がる will behave; and, given equal 知能, he may make more 悲惨な mistakes. There is no （疑いを）晴らす 証拠 from experience that the 投資 政策 which is socially advantageous 同時に起こる／一致するs with that which is most profitable. It needs more 知能 to 敗北・負かす the 軍隊s of time and our ignorance of the 未来 than to （警官の）巡回区域，受持ち区域 the gun. Moreover, life is not long enough;ｾhuman nature 願望（する）s quick results, there is a peculiar zest in making money quickly, and remoter 伸び（る）s are 割引d by the 普通の／平均（する） man at a very high 率. The game of professional 投資 is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is 完全に 免除された from the 賭事ing instinct; whilst he who has it must 支払う／賃金 to this propensity the appropriate （死傷者）数. その上に, an 投資家 who 提案するs to ignore 近づく-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 market fluctuations needs greater 資源s for safety and must not operate on so large a 規模, if at all, with borrowed moneyｾa その上の 推論する／理由 for the higher return from the pastime to a given 在庫／株 of 知能 and 資源s. Finally it is the long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 投資家, he who most 促進するs the public 利益／興味, who will in practice come in for most 批評, wherever 投資 基金s are managed by 委員会s or boards or banks. For it is in the essence of his behaviour that he should be eccentric, 慣習に捕らわれない and 無分別な in the 注目する，もくろむs of 普通の／平均（する） opinion. If he is successful, that will only 確認する the general belief in his rashness; and if in the short run he is 不成功の, which is very likely, he will not receive much mercy. Worldly 知恵 teaches that it is better for 評判 to fail 慣例的に than to 後継する unconventionally.
(5) So far we have had 主として in mind the 明言する／公表する of 信用／信任
of the 相場師 or 思索的な 投資家 himself and may have
seemed to be tacitly assuming that, if he himself is 満足させるd
with the prospects, he has 制限のない 命令（する） over money at the
market 率 of 利益／興味. This is, of course, not the 事例／患者. Thus
we must also take account of the other facet of the 明言する／公表する of
信用／信任, すなわち, the 信用／信任 of the lending 会・原則s
に向かって those who 捜し出す to borrow from them, いつかs 述べるd
as the 明言する／公表する of credit. A 崩壊（する） in the price of 公正，普通株主権s,
which has had 悲惨な reactions on the ごくわずかの efficiency of
資本／首都, may have been 予定 to the 弱めるing either of 思索的な
信用／信任 or of the 明言する／公表する of credit. But 反して the 弱めるing
of either is enough to 原因（となる） a 崩壊（する）, 回復 要求するs the
復活 of both. For whilst the 弱めるing of credit is
十分な to bring about a 崩壊（する）, its 強化するing, though a
necessary 条件 of 回復, is not a 十分な 条件.
VI
These considerations should not 嘘（をつく） beyond the purview of the 経済学者. But they must be relegated to their 権利 視野. If I may be 許すd to appropriate the 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 憶測 for the activity of 予測（する）ing the psychology of the market, and the 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 企業 for the activity of 予測（する）ing the 見込みのある 産する／生じる of 資産s over their whole life, it is by no means always the 事例／患者 that 憶測 predominates over 企業. As the organisation of 投資 markets 改善するs, the 危険 of the predominance of 憶測 does, however, 増加する. In one of the greatest 投資 markets in the world, すなわち, New York, the 影響（力） of 憶測 (in the above sense) is enormous. Even outside the field of 財政／金融, Americans are apt to be unduly 利益／興味d in discovering what 普通の／平均（する） opinion believes 普通の／平均（する） opinion to be; and this 国家の 証拠不十分 finds its nemesis in the 株式市場. It is rare, one is told, for an American to 投資する, as many Englishmen still do, 'for income'; and he will not readily 購入（する） an 投資 except in the hope of 資本／首都 評価. This is only another way of 説 that, when he 購入（する）s an 投資, the American is 大（公）使館員ing his hopes, not so much to its 見込みのある 産する／生じる, as to a favourable change in the 従来の basis of valuation, i.e. that he is, in the above sense, a 相場師. 相場師s may do no 害（を与える） as 泡s on a 安定した stream of 企業. But the position is serious when 企業 becomes the 泡 on a whirlpool of 憶測. When the 資本／首都 開発 of a country becomes a by-製品 of the activities of a casino, the 職業 is likely to be ill-done. The 手段 of success 達成するd by 塀で囲む Street, regarded as an 会・原則 of which the proper social 目的 is to direct new 投資 into the most profitable channels ーに関して／ーの点でs of 未来 産する／生じる, cannot be （人命などを）奪う，主張するd as one of the 優れた 勝利s of laissez-faire capitalismｾwhich is not surprising, if I am 権利 in thinking that the best brains of 塀で囲む Street have been in fact directed に向かって a different 反対する.
These 傾向s are a scarcely avoidable 結果 of our having 首尾よく organised 'liquid' 投資 markets. It is usually agreed that casinos should, in the public 利益／興味, be inaccessible and expensive. And perhaps the same is true of 在庫／株 交流s. That the sins of the London 在庫／株 交流 are いっそう少なく than those of 塀で囲む Street may be 予定, not so much to differences in 国家の character, as to the fact that to the 普通の／平均（する） Englishman Throgmorton Street is, compared with 塀で囲む Street to the 普通の／平均（する） American, inaccessible and very expensive. The jobber's 'turn', the high 仲買業 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金s and the 激しい 移転 税金 payable to the 国庫, which …に出席する 取引 on the London 在庫／株 交流, 十分に 減らす the liquidity of the market (although the practice of fortnightly accounts operates the other way) to 支配する out a large 割合 of the 処理／取引s characteristic of 塀で囲む Street. The introduction of a 相当な 政府 移転 税金 on all 処理／取引s might 証明する the most serviceable 改革（する） 利用できる, with a 見解（をとる） to mitigating the predominance of 憶測 over 企業 in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs.
The spectacle of modern 投資 markets has いつかs moved me に向かって the 結論 that to make the 購入（する） of an 投資 永久の and indissoluble, like marriage, except by 推論する／理由 of death or other 墓／厳粛／彫る／重大な 原因（となる）, might be a useful 治療（薬） for our 同時代の evils. For this would 軍隊 the 投資家 to direct his mind to the long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 prospects and to those only. But a little consideration of this expedient brings us up against a 窮地, and shows us how the liquidity of 投資 markets often 容易にするs, though it いつかs 妨げるs, the course of new 投資. For the fact that each individual 投資家 flatters himself that his かかわり合い is 'liquid' (though this cannot be true for all 投資家s collectively) 静めるs his 神経s and makes him much more willing to run a 危険. If individual 購入（する）s of 投資s were （判決などを）下すd illiquid, this might 本気で 妨げる new 投資, so long as 代案／選択肢 ways in which to 持つ／拘留する his 貯金 are 利用できる to the individual. This is the 窮地. So long as it is open to the individual to 雇う his wealth in hoarding or lending money, the 代案／選択肢 of 購入（する）ing actual 資本／首都 資産s cannot be （判決などを）下すd 十分に attractive (特に to the man who does not manage the 資本／首都 資産s and knows very little about them), except by organising markets wherein these 資産s can be easily realised for money.
The only 過激な cure for the crises of 信用／信任 which afflict the 経済的な life of the modern world would be to 許す the individual no choice between 消費するing his income and ordering the 生産／産物 of the 明確な／細部 資本／首都-資産 which, even though it be on 不安定な 証拠, impresses him as the most 約束ing 投資 利用できる to him. It might be that, at times when he was more than usually 攻撃する，非難するd by 疑問s 関心ing the 未来, he would turn in his perplexity に向かって more 消費 and いっそう少なく new 投資. But that would 避ける the 悲惨な, cumulative and far-reaching repercussions of its 存在 open to him, when thus 攻撃する，非難するd by 疑問s, to spend his income neither on the one nor on the other.
Those who have 強調d the social dangers of the hoarding
of money have, of course, had something 類似の to the above in
mind. But they have overlooked the 可能性 that the
現象 can occur without any change, or at least any
相応した change, in the hoarding of money.
VII
Even apart from the 不安定 予定 to 憶測, there is the 不安定 予定 to the characteristic of human nature that a large 割合 of our 肯定的な activities depend on spontaneous 楽観主義 rather than on a mathematical 期待, whether moral or hedonistic or 経済的な. Most, probably, of our 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to do something 肯定的な, the 十分な consequences of which will be drawn out over many days to come, can only be taken as a result of animal spiritsｾof a spontaneous 勧める to 活動／戦闘 rather than inaction, and not as the 結果 of a 負わせるd 普通の／平均（する） of quantitative 利益s multiplied by quantitative probabilities. 企業 only pretends to itself to be おもに actuated by the 声明s in its own prospectus, however candid and sincere. Only a little more than an 探検隊／遠征隊 to the South 政治家, is it based on an exact 計算／見積り of 利益s to come. Thus if the animal spirits are dimmed and the spontaneous 楽観主義 滞るs, leaving us to depend on nothing but a mathematical 期待, 企業 will fade and die;ｾthough 恐れるs of loss may have a basis no more reasonable than hopes of 利益（をあげる） had before.
It is 安全な to say that 企業 which depends on hopes stretching into the 未来 利益s the community as a whole. But individual 率先 will only be 適する when reasonable 計算／見積り is 補足（する）d and supported by animal spirits, so that the thought of ultimate loss which often 追いつくs 開拓するs, as experience undoubtedly tells us and them, is put aside as a healthy man puts aside the 期待 of death.
This means, unfortunately, not only that 低迷s and 不景気s are 誇張するd in degree, but that 経済的な 繁栄 is 過度に 扶養家族 on a political and social atmosphere which is congenial to the 普通の／平均（する） 商売／仕事 man. If the 恐れる of a 労働 政府 or a New 取引，協定 depresses 企業, this need not be the result either of a reasonable 計算／見積り or of a 陰謀（を企てる） with political 意図;ｾit is the mere consequence of upsetting the delicate balance of spontaneous 楽観主義. In 見積（る）ing the prospects of 投資, we must have regard, therefore, to the 神経s and hysteria and even the digestions and reactions to the 天候 of those upon whose spontaneous activity it 大部分は depends.
We should not 結論する from this that everything depends on
waves of irrational psychology. On the contrary, the 明言する／公表する of
long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待 is often 安定した, and, even when it is not,
the other factors 発揮する their 補償するing 影響s. We are 単に
reminding ourselves that human 決定／判定勝ち（する）s 影響する／感情ing the 未来,
whether personal or political or 経済的な, cannot depend on strict mathematical 期待, since the basis for
making such 計算／見積りs does not 存在する; and that it is our
innate 勧める to activity which makes the wheels go 一連の会議、交渉／完成する, our
合理的な／理性的な selves choosing between the 代案／選択肢s as best we are
able, calculating where we can, but often 落ちるing 支援する for our
動機 on whim or 感情 or chance.
VIII
There are, moreover, 確かな important factors which somewhat mitigate in practice the 影響s of our ignorance of the 未来. 借りがあるing to the 操作／手術 of 構内／化合物 利益／興味 連合させるd with the 見込み of obsolescence with the passage of time, there are many individual 投資s of which the 見込みのある 産する／生じる is legitimately 支配するd by the returns of the comparatively 近づく 未来. In the 事例／患者 of the most important class of very long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 投資s, すなわち buildings, the 危険 can be frequently transferred from the 投資家 to the occupier, or at least 株d between them, by means of long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 契約s, the 危険 存在 outweighed in the mind of the occupier by the advantages of 連続 and 安全 of 任期. In the 事例／患者 of another important class of long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 投資s, すなわち public 公共事業（料金）／有用性s, a 相当な 割合 of the 見込みのある 産する／生じる is 事実上 保証（人）d by monopoly 特権s coupled with the 権利 to 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金 such 率s as will 供給する a 確かな 規定するd 利ざや. Finally there is a growing class of 投資s entered upon by, or at the 危険 of; public 当局, which are 率直に 影響（力）d in making the 投資 by a general presumption of there 存在 見込みのある social advantages from the 投資, whatever its 商業の 産する／生じる may 証明する to be within a wide 範囲, and without 捜し出すing to be 満足させるd that the mathematical 期待 of the 産する／生じる is at least equal to the 現在の 率 of 利益／興味,ｾthough the 率 which the public 当局 has to 支払う／賃金 may still play a 決定的な part in 決定するing the 規模 of 投資 操作／手術s which it can afford.
Thus after giving 十分な 負わせる to the importance of the 影響（力） of short-period changes in the 明言する／公表する of long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待 as 際立った from changes in the 率 of 利益／興味, we are still する権利を与えるd to return to the latter as 演習ing, at any 率, in normal circumstances, a 広大な／多数の／重要な, though not a 決定的な, 影響（力） on the 率 of 投資. Only experience, however, can show how far 管理／経営 of the 率 of 利益／興味 is 有能な of continuously 刺激するing the appropriate 容積／容量 of 投資.
For my own part I am now somewhat 懐疑的な of the success of
a 単に 通貨の 政策 directed に向かって 影響（力）ing the 率 of
利益／興味. I 推定する／予想する to see the 明言する／公表する, which is in a position to
calculate the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都-goods on long 見解（をとる）s
and on the basis of the general social advantage, taking an ever
greater 責任／義務 for 直接／まっすぐに organising 投資; since
it seems likely that the fluctuations in the market estimation of
the ごくわずかの efficiency of different types of 資本／首都, calculated
on the 原則s I have 述べるd above, will be too 広大な／多数の／重要な to be
相殺する by any practicable changes in the 率 of 利益／興味.
一時期／支部 13
I
We have shown in 一時期／支部 11 that, whilst there are 軍隊s 原因（となる）ing the 率 of 投資 to rise or 落ちる so as to keep the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 equal to the 率 of 利益／興味, yet the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 is, in itself; a different thing from the 判決，裁定 率 of 利益／興味. The schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 may be said to 治める／統治する the 条件 on which loanable 基金s are 需要・要求するd for the 目的 of new 投資; whilst the 率 of 利益／興味 治める／統治するs the 条件 on which 基金s are 存在 現在／一般に 供給（する）d. To 完全にする our theory, therefore, we need to know what 決定するs the 率 of 利益／興味.
In 一時期／支部 14 and its 虫垂 we shall consider the answers
to this question which have been given hitherto. 概して
speaking, we shall find that they make the 率 of 利益／興味 to
depend on the interaction of the schedule of the ごくわずかの
efficiency of 資本／首都 with the psychological propensity to save.
But the notion that the 率 of 利益／興味 is the balancing factor
which brings the 需要・要求する for saving in the 形態／調整 of new 投資
来たるべき at a iven 率 of 利益／興味 into equality with the
供給（する） of saving which results at that 率 of 利益／興味 from the
community's psychological propensity to save, breaks 負かす／撃墜する as soon
as we perceive that it is impossible to deduce the 率 of
利益／興味 単に from a knowledge of these two factors. What, then, is our own answer to this question?
II
The psychological time-preferences of an individual 要求する two 際立った 始める，決めるs of 決定／判定勝ち（する）s to carry them out 完全に. The first is 関心d with that 面 of time-preference which I have called the propensity to 消費する, which, operating under the 影響（力） of the さまざまな 動機s 始める，決める 前へ／外へ in 調書をとる／予約する III, 決定するs for each individual how much of his income he will 消費する and how much he will reserve in some form of 命令（する） over 未来 消費.
But this 決定／判定勝ち（する） having been made, there is a その上の 決定／判定勝ち（する） which を待つs him, すなわち, in what form he will 持つ／拘留する the 命令（する） over 未来 消費 which he has reserved, whether out of his 現在の income or from previous 貯金. Does he want to 持つ／拘留する it in the form of 即座の, liquid 命令（する） (i.e. in money or its 同等（の）)? Or is he 用意が出来ている to part with 即座の 命令（する） for a 明示するd or 不明確な／無期限の period, leaving it to 未来 market 条件s to 決定する on what 条件 he can, if necessary, 変える deferred 命令（する） over 明確な／細部 goods into 即座の 命令（する） over goods in general? In other words, what is the degree of his liquidity-preferenceｾwhere an individual's liquidity-preference is given by a schedule of the 量s of his 資源s, valued ーに関して／ーの点でs of money or of 行う-部隊s, which he will wish to 保持する in the form of money in different 始める，決めるs of circumstances?
We shall find that the mistake in the 受託するd theories of the 率 of 利益／興味 lies in their 試みる／企てるing to derive the 率 of 利益／興味 from the first of these two 選挙権を持つ／選挙人s of psychological time-preference to the neglect of the second; and it is this neglect which we must endeavour to 修理.
It should be obvious that the 率 of 利益／興味 cannot be a return to saving or waiting as such. For if a man hoards his 貯金 in cash, he earns no 利益／興味, though he saves just as much as before. On the contrary, the mere 鮮明度／定義 of the 率 of 利益／興味 tells us in so many words that the 率 of 利益／興味 is the reward for parting with liquidity for a 明示するd period. For the 率 of 利益／興味 is, in itself; nothing more than the inverse 割合 between a sum of money and what can be 得るd for parting with 支配（する）／統制する over the money in 交流 for a 負債 for a 明言する／公表するd period of time.
Thus the 率 of 利益／興味 at any time, 存在 the reward for parting with liquidity, is a 手段 of the 不本意 of those who 所有する money to part with their liquid 支配（する）／統制する over it. The 率 of 利益／興味 is not the 'price' which brings into equilibrium the 需要・要求する for 資源s to 投資する with the 準備完了 to 棄権する from 現在の 消費. It is the 'price' which equilibrates the 願望（する） to 持つ／拘留する wealth in the form of cash with the 利用できる 量 of cash;ｾwhich 暗示するs that if the 率 of 利益／興味 were lower, i.e. if the reward for parting with cash were 減らすd, the aggregate 量 of cash which the public would wish to 持つ／拘留する would 越える the 利用できる 供給（する）, and that if the 率 of 利益／興味 were raised, there would be a 黒字／過剰 of cash which no one would be willing to 持つ／拘留する. If this explanation is 訂正する, the 量 of money is the other factor, which, in 合同 with liquidity-preference, 決定するs the actual 率 of 利益／興味 in given circumstances. Liquidity-preference is a potentiality or 機能の 傾向, which 直す／買収する，八百長をするs the 量 of money which the public will 持つ／拘留する when the 率 of 利益／興味 is given; so that if r is the 率 of 利益／興味, M the 量 of money and L the 機能（する）／行事 of liquidity-preference, we have M = L(r). This is where, and how, the 量 of money enters into the 経済的な 計画／陰謀.
At this point, however, let us turn 支援する and consider why such a thing as liquidity-preference 存在するs. In this 関係 we can usefully 雇う the 古代の distinction between the use of money for the 処理／取引 of 現在の 商売／仕事 and its use as a 蓄える／店 of wealth. As regards the first of these two uses, it is obvious that up to a point it is 価値（がある） while to sacrifice a 確かな 量 of 利益／興味 for the convenience of liquidity. But, given that the 率 of 利益／興味 is never 消極的な, why should anyone prefer to 持つ／拘留する his wealth in a form which 産する／生じるs little or no 利益／興味 to 持つ／拘留するing it in a form which 産する／生じるs 利益／興味 (assuming, of course, at this 行う／開催する／段階, that the 危険 of default is the same in 尊敬（する）・点 of a bank balance as of a 社債)? A 十分な explanation is コンビナート／複合体 and must wait for 一時期／支部 15. There is, however, a necessary 条件 failing which the 存在 of a liquidity-preference for money as a means of 持つ／拘留するing wealth could not 存在する.
This necessary 条件 is the 存在 of 不確定 as
to the 未来 of the 率 of 利益／興味, i.e. as to the コンビナート／複合体 of
率s of 利益／興味 for 変化させるing 成熟s which will 支配する at
未来 dates. For if the 率s of 利益／興味 判決，裁定 at all 未来
times could be foreseen with certainty, all 未来 率s of
利益／興味 could be inferred from the 現在の 率s of
利益／興味 for 負債s of different 成熟s, which would be
adjusted to the knowledge of the 未来 率s. For example, if 1dr
is the value ln the 現在の year 1 of ｣1 deferred r years
and it is known that ndr will
be the value in the year n of ｣1 deferred r years
from that date, we have
1dn + r
ndr = ｾｾｾｾ ;
1dn
whence it follows that the 率 at which any 負債 can be turned into cash n years hence is given by two out of the コンビナート／複合体 of 現在の 率s of 利益／興味. If the 現在の 率 of 利益／興味 is 肯定的な for 負債s of every 成熟, it must always be more advantageous to 購入（する） a 負債 than to 持つ／拘留する cash as a 蓄える／店 of wealth.
If, on the contrary, the 未来 率 of 利益／興味 is uncertain we cannot 安全に infer that ndr will 証明する to be equal to 1dn + r / 1dn when the time comes. Thus if a need for liquid cash may conceivably arise before the expiry of n years, there is a 危険 of a loss 存在 incurred in 購入（する）ing a long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 負債 and subsequently turning it into cash, as compared with 持つ／拘留するing cash. The actuarial 利益（をあげる） or mathematical 期待 of 伸び（る） calculated in 一致 with the 存在するing probabilitiesｾif it can be so calculated, which is doubtfulｾmust be 十分な to 補償する for the 危険 of 失望.
There is, moreover, a その上の ground for liquidity-preference which results from the 存在 of 不確定 as to the 未来 of the 率 of 利益／興味, 供給するd that there is an organlsed market for 取引，協定ing in 負債s. For different people will 見積（る） the prospects 異なって and anyone who 異なるs from the predominant opinion as 表明するd in market quotations may have a good 推論する／理由 for keeping liquid 資源s ーするために 利益（をあげる）, if he is 権利, from its turning out in 予定 course that the 1dr's were in a mistaken 関係 to one another.
This is closely analogous to what we have already discussed at some length in 関係 with the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都. Just as we 設立する that the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 is 直す／買収する，八百長をするd, not by the 'best' opinion, but by the market valuation as 決定するd by 集まり psychology, so also 期待s as to the 未来 of the 率 of 利益／興味 as 直す／買収する，八百長をするd by 集まり psychology have their reactions on liquidity-preference;ｾbut with this 新規加入 that the individual, who believes that 未来 率s of 利益／興味 will be above the 率s assumed by the market, has a 推論する／理由 for keeping actual liquid cash, whilst the individual who 異なるs from the market in the other direction will have a 動機 for borrowing money for short periods ーするために 購入（する） 負債s of longer 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語. The market price will be 直す／買収する，八百長をするd at the point at which the sales of the '耐えるs' and the 購入（する）s of the 'bulls' are balanced.
The three 分割s of liquidity-preference which we have distinguished above may be defined as depending on (i) the 処理／取引s-動機, i.e. the need of cash for the 現在の 処理／取引 of personal and 商売／仕事 交流s; (ii) the 予防の-動機, i.e. the 願望（する） for 安全 as to the 未来 cash 同等（の） of a 確かな 割合 of total 資源s; and (iii) the 思索的な-動機, i.e. the 反対する of 安全な・保証するing 利益（をあげる） from knowing better than the market what the 未来 will bring 前へ／外へ. As when we were discussing the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都, the question of the desirability of having a 高度に organised market for 取引，協定ing with 負債s 現在のs us with a 窮地. For, in the absence of an organised market, liquidity-preference 予定 to the 予防の-動機 would be 大いに 増加するd; 反して the 存在 of an organised market gives an 適切な時期 for wide fluctuations in liquidity-preference 予定 to the 思索的な-動機.
It may illustrate the argument to point out that, if the liquidity-preferences 予定 to the 処理／取引s-動機 and the 予防の-動機 are assumed to 吸収する a 量 of cash which is not very 極度の慎重さを要する to changes in the 率 of 利益／興味 as such and apart from its reactions on the level of income, so that the total 量 of money, いっそう少なく this 量, is 利用できる for 満足させるing liquidity-preferences 予定 to the 思索的な-動機, the 率 of 利益／興味 and the price of 社債s have to be 直す／買収する，八百長をするd at the level at which the 願望（する） on the part of 確かな individuals to 持つ／拘留する cash (because at that level they feel 'bearish' of the 未来 of 社債s) is 正確に／まさに equal to the 量 of cash 利用できる for the 思索的な-動機. Thus each 増加する in the 量 of money must raise the price of 社債s 十分に to 越える the 期待s of some 'bull' and so 影響（力） him to sell his 社債 for cash and join the '耐える' 旅団. If, however, there is a ごくわずかの 需要・要求する for cash from the 思索的な-動機 except for a short 過度期の interval, an 増加する in the 量 of money will have to lower the 率 of 利益／興味 almost forthwith, in whatever degree is necessary to raise 雇用 and the 行う-部隊 十分に to 原因（となる） the 付加 cash to be 吸収するd by the 処理／取引s-動機 and the 予防の-動機.
As a 支配する, we can suppose that the schedule of liquidity-preference relating the 量 of money to the 率 of 利益／興味 is given by a smooth curve which shows the 率 of 利益／興味 落ちるing as the 量 of money is 増加するd. For there are several different 原因（となる）s all 主要な に向かって this result.
In the first place, as the 率 of 利益／興味 落ちるs, it is likely, cet. par., that more money will be 吸収するd by liquidity-preferences 予定 to the 処理／取引s-動機. For if the 落ちる in the 率 of 利益／興味 増加するs the 国民所得, the 量 of money which it is convenient to keep for 処理／取引s will be 増加するd more or いっそう少なく proportionately to the 増加する in income; whilst, at the same time, the cost of the convenience of plenty of ready cash in 条件 of loss of 利益／興味 will be 減らすd. Unless we 手段 liquidity-preference ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s rather than of money (which is convenient in some 状況s), 類似の results follow if the 増加するd 雇用 続いて起こるing on a 落ちる in the 率 of 利益／興味 leads to an 増加する of 給料, i.e. to an 増加する in the money value of the 行う-部隊. In the second place, every 落ちる in the 率 of 利益／興味 may, as we have just seen, 増加する the 量 of cash which 確かな individuals will wish to 持つ／拘留する because their 見解（をとる）s as to the 未来 of the 率 of 利益／興味 異なる from the market 見解（をとる）s.
にもかかわらず, circumstances can develop in which even a large
増加する in the 量 of money may 発揮する a comparatively small
影響（力） on the 率 of 利益／興味. For a large 増加する in the
量 of money may 原因（となる） so much 不確定 about the 未来
that liquidity-preferences 予定 to the 予防の-動機 may be
強化するd; whilst opinion about the 未来 of the 率 of
利益／興味 may be so 全員一致の that a small change in 現在の 率s
may 原因（となる） a 集まり movement into cash. It is 利益／興味ing that the
安定 of the system and its sensitiveness to changes in the
量 of money should be so 扶養家族 on the 存在 of a variety
of opinion about what is uncertain. Best of all that we
should know the 未来. But if not, then, if we are to 支配（する）／統制する
the activity of the 経済的な system by changing the 量 of
money, it is important that opinions should 異なる Thus this
method of 支配（する）／統制する is more 不安定な in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs, where
everyone tends to 持つ／拘留する the same opinion at the same time, than in
England where differences of opinion are more usual.
III
We have now introduced money into our causal nexus for the
first time, and we are able to catch a first glimpse of the way
in which changes in the 量 of money work their way into the
経済的な system. If, however, we are tempted to 主張する that money
is the drink which 刺激するs the system to activity, we must
remind ourselves that there may be several slips between the cup
and the lip. For whilst an 増加する in the 量 of money may
be 推定する／予想するd, cet. par., to 減ずる the 率 of 利益／興味,
this will not happen if the liquidity-preferences of the public
are 増加するing more than the 量 of money; and whilst a
拒絶する／低下する in the 率 of 利益／興味 may be 推定する／予想するd, cet. par.,
to 増加する the 容積／容量 of 投資, this will not happen if the
schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 is 落ちるing more
速く than the 率 of の間の~t; and whilst an 増加する in the
容積／容量 of 投資 may be 推定する／予想するd, cet. par., to
増加する 雇用, this may not happen if the propensity to
消費する is 落ちるing off. Finally, if 雇用 増加するs, prices
will rise in a degree partly 治める／統治するd by the 形態／調整s of the
physical 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事s, and partly by the 義務／負債 of the
行う-部隊 to rise ーに関して／ーの点でs of money. And when 生産（高） has
増加するd and prices have risen, the 影響 of this on
liquidity-preference will be to 増加する the 量 of money
necessary to 持続する a given 率 of 利益／興味.
IV
Whilst liquidity-preference 予定 to the 思索的な-動機
corresponds to what in my Treatise on Money I called 'the
明言する／公表する of bearishness', it is by no means the same thing. For
'bearishness' is there defined as the 機能の 関係,
not between the 率 of 利益／興味 (or price of 負債s) and the
量 of money, but between the price of 資産s and 負債s,
taken together, and the 量 of money. This 治療, however, 伴う／関わるd a
混乱 between results 予定 to a change in the 率 of 利益／興味
and those 予定 to a change in the schedule of the ごくわずかの
efficiency of 資本／首都, which I hope I have here 避けるd.
V
The 概念 of hoarding may be regarded as a first
approximation to the 概念 of liquidity-preference.
Indeed if we were to 代用品，人 'propensity to hoard' for
'hoarding', it would come to 大幅に the same thing. But if
we mean by 'hoarding' an actual 増加する in cash-持つ／拘留するing, it is
an incomplete ideaｾand 本気で
誤って導くing if it 原因（となる）s us to think of 'hoarding' and
'not-hoarding' as simple 代案／選択肢s. For the 決定／判定勝ち（する） to hoard
is not taken 絶対 or without regard to the advantages
申し込む／申し出d for parting with liquidity;ｾit
results from a balancing of advantages, and we have, therefore,
to know what lies in the other 規模. Moreover it is impossible
for the actual 量 of hoarding to change as a result of
決定／判定勝ち（する）s on the part of the public, so long as we mean by
'hoarding' the actual 持つ／拘留するing of cash. For the 量 of hoarding
must be equal to the 量 of money (orｾon
some 鮮明度／定義sｾto the 量 of
money minus what is 要求するd to 満足させる the
処理／取引s-動機); and the 量 of money is not 決定するd
by the public. All that the propensity of the public に向かって
hoarding can 達成する is to 決定する the 率 of 利益／興味 at
which the aggregate 願望（する） to hoard becomes equal to the
利用できる cash. The habit of overlooking the relation of the 率
of 利益／興味 to hoarding may be a part of the explanation why
利益／興味 has been usually regarded as the reward of not-spending,
反して in fact it is the reward of not-hoarding.
一時期／支部 14
I
What is the classical theory of the 率 of 利益／興味? It is something upon which we have all been brought up and which we have 受託するd without much reserve until recently. Yet I find it difficult to 明言する／公表する it 正確に or to discover an explicit account of it in the 主要な treatises of the modern classical school.
It is 公正に／かなり （疑いを）晴らす, however, that this tradition has regarded the 率 of 利益／興味 as the factor which brings the 需要・要求する for 投資 and the 乗り気 to save into equilibrium with one another. 投資 代表するs the 需要・要求する for investible 資源s and saving 代表するs the 供給（する）, whilst the 率 of 利益／興味 is the 'price' of investible 資源s at which the two are equated. Just as the price of a 商品／必需品 is やむを得ず 直す／買収する，八百長をするd at that point where the 需要・要求する for it is equal to the 供給（する）, so the 率 of 利益／興味 やむを得ず comes to 残り／休憩（する） under the play of market 軍隊s at the point where the 量 of 投資 at that 率 of 利益／興味 is equal to the 量 of saving at that 率.
The above is not to be 設立する in Marshall's 原則s in so many words. Yet his theory seems to be this, and it is what I myself was brought up on and what I taught for many years to others. Take, for example, the に引き続いて passage from his 原則s: '利益／興味, 存在 the price paid for the use of 資本／首都 in any market, tends に向かって an equilibrium level such that the aggregate 需要・要求する for 資本／首都 in that market, at that 率 of 利益／興味, is equal to the aggregate 在庫／株 来たるべき at that 率'. Or again in Professor Cassel's Nature and Necessity of 利益／興味 it is explained that 投資 構成するs the '需要・要求する for waiting' and saving the '供給（する） of waiting', whilst 利益／興味 is a 'price' which serves, it is 暗示するd, to equate the two, though here again I have not 設立する actual words to 引用する. 一時期／支部 vi of Professor Carver's 配当 of Wealth 明確に 想像するs 利益／興味 as the factor which brings into equilibrium the ごくわずかの disutility of waiting with the ごくわずかの 生産性 of 資本／首都. Sir Alfred Flux (経済的な 原則s, p. 95) 令状s: 'If there is 司法（官） in the 論争s of our general discussion, it must be 認める that an (a)自動的な／(n)自動拳銃 調整 takes place between saving and the 適切な時期s for 雇うing 資本／首都 profitably. . . Saving will not have 越えるd its 可能性s of usefulness. . . so long as the 率 of 逮捕する 利益／興味 is in 超過 of 無.' Professor Taussig (原則s, vol. ii. p. 29) draws a 供給（する） curve of saving and a 需要・要求する curve 代表するing 'the 減らすing productiveness of the several instalments of 資本／首都', having 以前 明言する／公表するd (p.20) that 'the 率 of 利益／興味 settles at a point where the ごくわずかの 生産性 of 資本／首都 十分であるs to bring out the ごくわずかの instalment of saving'. Walras, in 虫垂 I (III) of his Éléments d'économie pure, where he 取引，協定s with 'l'échange d'épargnes contre capitaux neufs', argues expressly that, corresponding to each possible 率 of 利益／興味, there is a sum which individuals will save and also a sum which they will 投資する in new 資本／首都 資産s, that these two aggregates tend to equality with one another, and that the 率 of 利益／興味 is the variable which brings them to equality; so that the 率 of 利益／興味 is 直す／買収する，八百長をするd at the point where saving, which 代表するs the 供給（する） of new 資本／首都, is equal to the 需要・要求する for it. Thus he is 厳密に in the classical tradition.
Certainly the ordinary man¾銀行業者, civil servant or 政治家，政治屋¾brought up on the 伝統的な theory, and the trained 経済学者 also, has carried away with him the idea that whenever an individual 成し遂げるs an 行為／法令／行動する of saving he has done something which automatically brings 負かす／撃墜する the 率 of 利益／興味, that this automatically 刺激するs the 生産（高） of 資本／首都, and that the 落ちる in the 率 of 利益／興味 is just so much as is necessary to 刺激する the 生産（高） of 資本／首都 to an extent which is equal to the increment of saving; and, その上の, that this is a self-regulatory 過程 of 調整 which takes place without the necessity for any special 介入 or grandmotherly care on the part of the 通貨の 当局. 類似して¾and this is an even more general belief, even to-day¾each 付加 行為／法令／行動する of 投資 will やむを得ず raise the 率 of 利益／興味, if it is not 相殺する by a change in the 準備完了 to save.
Now the 分析 of the previous 一時期／支部s will have made it plain that this account of the 事柄 must be erroneous. In tracing to its source the 推論する／理由 for the difference of opinion, let us, however, begin with the 事柄s which are agreed.
Unlike the neo-classical school, who believe that saving and 投資 can be 現実に unequal, the classical school proper has 受託するd the 見解（をとる） that they are equal. Marshall, for example, surely believed, although he did not expressly say so, that aggregate saving and aggregate 投資 are やむを得ず equal. Indeed, most members of the classical school carried this belief much too far; since they held that every 行為／法令／行動する of 増加するd saving by an individual やむを得ず brings into 存在 a corresponding 行為／法令／行動する of 増加するd 投資. Nor is there any 構成要素 difference, 関連した in this 状況, between my schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 or 投資 需要・要求する-schedule and the 需要・要求する curve for 資本／首都 熟視する／熟考するd by some of the classical writers who have been 引用するd above. When we come to the propensity to 消費する and its corollary the propensity to save, we are nearer to a difference of opinion, 借りがあるing to the 強調 which they have placed on the 影響（力） of the 率 of 利益／興味 on the propensity to save. But they would, 推定では, not wish to 否定する that the level of income also has an important 影響（力） on the 量 saved; whilst I, for my part, would not 否定する that the 率 of 利益／興味 may perhaps have an 影響（力） (though perhaps not of the 肉親，親類d which they suppose) on the 量 saved out of a given income. All these points of 協定 can be summed up in a proposition which the classical school would 受託する and I should not 論争; すなわち, that, if the level of income is assumed to be given, we can infer that the 現在の 率 of 利益／興味 must 嘘（をつく） at the point where the 需要・要求する curve for 資本／首都 corresponding to different 率s of 利益／興味 削減（する）s the curve of the 量s saved out of the given income corresponding to different 率s of 利益／興味.
But this is the point at which 限定された error creeps into the classical theory. If the classical school 単に inferred from the above proposition that, given the 需要・要求する curve for 資本／首都 and the 影響（力） of changes in the 率 of 利益／興味 on the 準備完了 to save out of given incomes, the level of income and the 率 of 利益／興味 must be uniquely correlated, there would be nothing to quarrel with. Moreover, this proposition would lead 自然に to another proposition which 具体的に表現するs an important truth; すなわち, that, if the 率 of 利益／興味 is given 同様に as the 需要・要求する curve for 資本／首都 and the 影響（力） of the 率 of 利益／興味 on the 準備完了 to save out of given levels of income, the level of income must be the factor which brings the 量 saved to equality with the 量 投資するd. But, in fact, the classical theory not 単に neglects the 影響（力） of changes in the level of income, but 伴う／関わるs formal error.
For the classical theory, as can be seen from the above quotations, assumes that it can then proceed to consider the 影響 on the 率 of 利益／興味 of (e.g.) a 転換 in the 需要・要求する curve for 資本／首都, without abating or 修正するing its 仮定／引き受けること as to the 量 of the given income out of which the 貯金 are to be made. The 独立した・無所属 variables of the classical theory of the 率 of 利益／興味 are the 需要・要求する curve for 資本／首都 and the 影響（力） of the 率 of 利益／興味 on the 量 saved out of a given income; and when (e.g.) the 需要・要求する curve for 資本／首都 転換s, the new 率 of 利益／興味, によれば this theory, is given by the point of 交差点 between the new 需要・要求する curve for 資本／首都 and the curve relating the 率 of 利益／興味 to the 量s which will be saved out of the given income. The classical theory of the 率 of 利益／興味 seems to suppose that, if the 需要・要求する curve for 資本／首都 転換s or if the curve relating the 率 of 利益／興味 to the 量s saved out of a given income 転換s or if both these curves 転換, the new 率 of 利益／興味 will be given by the point of 交差点 of the new positions of the two curves. But this is a nonsense theory. For the 仮定／引き受けること that income is constant is inconsistent with the 仮定／引き受けること that these two curves can 転換 独立して of one another. If either of them 転換, then, in general, income will change; with the result that the whole schematism based on the 仮定／引き受けること of a given income breaks 負かす／撃墜する. The position could only be saved by some 複雑にするd 仮定／引き受けること 供給するing for an (a)自動的な／(n)自動拳銃 change in the 行う-部隊 of an 量 just 十分な in its 影響 on liquidity-preference to 設立する a 率 of 利益／興味 which would just 相殺する the supposed 転換, so as to leave 生産（高） at the same level as before. In fact, there is no hint to be 設立する in the above writers as to the necessity for any such 仮定／引き受けること; at the best it would be plausible only in relation to long-period equilibrium and could not form the basis of a short-period theory; and there is no ground for supposing it to 持つ／拘留する even in the long-period. In truth, the classical theory has not been alive to the relevance of changes in the level of income or to the 可能性 of the level of income 存在 現実に a 機能（する）／行事 of the 率 of the 投資.
The above can be illustrated by a diagram as follows:
In this diagram the 量 of 投資 (or saving) I is 手段d vertically, and the 率 of 利益／興味 r horizontally. X1X1' is the first position of the 投資 需要・要求する-schedule, and X2X2' is a second position of this curve. The curve Y1 relates the 量s saved out of an income Y1 to さまざまな levels of the 率 of 利益／興味, the curves Y2, Y3, etc., 存在 the corresponding curves for levels of income Y2, Y3, etc. Let us suppose that the curve Y1 is the Y-curve 一貫した with an 投資 需要・要求する-schedule X1X1' and a 率 of 利益／興味 r1. Now if the 投資 需要・要求する-schedule 転換s from X1X1' to X2X2', income will, in general, 転換 also. But the above diagram does not 含む／封じ込める enough data to tell us what its new value will be; and, therefore, not knowing which is the appropriate Y-curve, we do not know at what point the new 投資 需要・要求する-schedule will 削減（する） it. If, however, we introduce the 明言する／公表する of liquidity-preference and the 量 of money and these between them tell us that the 率 of 利益／興味 is r2, then the whole position becomes determinate. For the Y-curve which intersects X2X2' at the point vertically above r2, すなわち, the curve Y2, will be the appropriate curve. Thus the X-curve and the Y-curves tell us nothing about the 率 of 利益／興味. They only tell us what income will be, if from some other source we can say what the 率 of 利益／興味 is. If nothing has happened to the 明言する／公表する of liquidity-preference and the 量 of money, so that the 率 of 利益／興味 is 不変の, then the curve Y2' which intersects the new 投資 需要・要求する-schedule vertically below the point where the curve Y1 intersected the old 投資 需要・要求する-schedule will be the appropriate Y-curve, and Y2' will be the new level of income.
Thus the 機能（する）／行事s used by the classical theory, すなわち, the 返答 of 投資 and the 返答 of the 量 saved out of a given income to change in the 率 of 利益／興味, do not furnish 構成要素 for a theory of the 率 of 利益／興味; but they could be used to tell us what the level of income will be, given (from some other source) the 率 of 利益／興味; and, alternatively, what the 率 of 利益／興味 will have to be, if the level of income is to be 持続するd at a given 人物／姿／数字 (e.g. the level corresponding to 十分な 雇用).
The mistake 起こる／始まるs from regarding 利益／興味 as the reward for waiting as such, instead of as the reward for not-hoarding; just as the 率s of return on 貸付金s or 投資s 伴う／関わるing different degrees of 危険, are やめる 適切に regarded as the reward, not of waiting as such, but of running the 危険. There is, in truth, no sharp line between these and the いわゆる 'pure' 率 of 利益／興味, all of them 存在 the reward for running the 危険 of 不確定 of one 肉親，親類d or another. Only ln the event of money 存在 used 単独で for 処理／取引s and never as a 蓄える／店 of value, would a different theory become appropriate.
There are, however, two familiar points which might, perhaps, have 警告するd the classical school that something was wrong. In the first place, it has been agreed, at any 率 since the 出版（物） of Professor Cassel's Nature and Necessity of 利益／興味, that it is not 確かな that the sum saved out of a given income やむを得ず 増加するs when the 率 of 利益／興味 is 増加するd; 反して no one 疑問s that the 投資 需要・要求する-schedule 落ちるs with a rising 率 of 利益／興味. But if the Y-curves and the X-curves both 落ちる as the 率 of 利益／興味 rises, there is no 保証（人） that a given Y-curve will intersect a given X-curve anywhere at all. This 示唆するs that it cannot be the Y-curve and the X-curve alone which 決定する the 率 of 利益／興味.
In the second place, it has been usual to suppose that an 増加する in the 量 of money has a 傾向 to 減ずる the 率 of 利益／興味, at any 率 in the first instance and in the short period. Yet no 推論する／理由 has been given why a change in the 量 of money should 影響する／感情 either the 投資 需要・要求する-schedule or the 準備完了 to save out of a given income. Thus the classical school have had やめる a different theory of the 率 of 利益／興味 in 容積／容量 I 取引，協定ing with the theory of value from what they have had in 容積／容量 II 取引，協定ing with the theory of money. They have seemed undisturbed by the 衝突 and have made no 試みる／企てる, so far as I know, to build a 橋（渡しをする） between the two theories. The classical school proper, that is to say; since it is the 試みる／企てる to build a 橋（渡しをする） on the part of the neo-classical school which has led to the worst muddles of all. For the latter have inferred that there must be two sources of 供給（する） to 会合，会う the 投資 需要・要求する-schedule; すなわち, 貯金 proper, which are the 貯金 dealt with by the classical school, 加える the sum made 利用できる by any 増加する in the 量 of money (this 存在 balanced by some 種類 of 徴収する on the public, called '軍隊d saving' or the like). This leads on to the idea that there is a 'natural' or '中立の' or equilibrium' 率 of 利益／興味, すなわち, that 率 of 利益／興味 which equates 投資 to classical 貯金 proper without any 新規加入 from '軍隊d 貯金'; and finally to what, assuming they are on the 権利 跡をつける at the start, is the most obvious 解答 of all, すなわち, that, if the 量 of money could only be kept constant in all circumstances, 非，不，無 of these 複雑化s would arise, since the evils supposed to result from the supposed 超過 of 投資 over 貯金 proper would 中止する to be possible. But at this point we are in 深い water. 'The wild duck has dived 負かす／撃墜する to the 底（に届く）¾as 深い as she can get¾and bitten 急速な／放蕩な 持つ／拘留する of the 少しのd and 絡まる and all the rubbish that is 負かす／撃墜する there, and it would need an extraordinarily clever dog to dive after and fish her up again.'
Thus the 伝統的な 分析 is 欠陥のある because it has failed to 孤立する 正確に the 独立した・無所属 variables of the system. Saving and 投資 are the determinates of the system, not the determinants. They are the twin results of the system's determinants, すなわち, the propensity to 消費する, the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 and the 率 of 利益／興味. These determinants are, indeed, themselves コンビナート／複合体 and each is 有能な of 存在 影響する／感情d by 見込みのある changes in the others. But they remain 独立した・無所属 in the sense that their values cannot be inferred from one another. The 伝統的な 分析 has been aware that saving depends on income but it has overlooked the fact that income depends on 投資, in such fashion that, when 投資 changes, income must やむを得ず change in just that degree which is necessary to make the change in saving equal to the change in 投資.
Nor are those theories more successful which 試みる／企てる to make the 率 of 利益／興味 depend on 'the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都'. It is true that in equilibrium the 率 of 利益／興味 will be equal to the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都, since it will be profitable to 増加する (or 減少（する）) the 現在の 規模 of 投資 until the point of equality has been reached. But to make this into a theory of the 率 of 利益／興味 or to derive the 率 of 利益／興味 from it 伴う／関わるs a circular argument, as Marshall discovered after he had got half-way into giving an account of the 率 of 利益／興味 along these lines. For the 'ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都' partly depends on the 規模 of 現在の 投資, and we must already know the 率 of 利益／興味 before we can calculate what this 規模 will be. The 重要な 結論 is that the 生産（高） of new 投資 will be 押し進めるd to the point at which the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 becomes equal to the 率 of 利益／興味; and what the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 tells us, is, not what the 率 of 利益／興味 is, but the point to which the 生産（高） of new 投資 will be 押し進めるd, given the 率 of 利益／興味.
The reader will readily 高く評価する／（相場などが）上がる that the problem here under discussion is a 事柄 of the most 根底となる theoretical significance and of 圧倒的な practical importance. For the 経済的な 原則, on which the practical advice of 経済学者s has been almost invariably based, has assumed, in 影響, that, cet. par., a 減少（する） in spending will tend to lower the 率 of 利益／興味 and an 増加する in 投資 to raise it. But if what these two 量s 決定する is, not the 率 of 利益／興味, but the aggregate 容積／容量 of 雇用, then our 見通し on the 機械装置 of the 経済的な system will be profoundly changed. A 減少（する）d 準備完了 to spend will be looked on in やめる a different light If, instead of 存在 regarded as a factor which will, cet. par., 増加する 投資, it is seen as a factor which will, cet. par., 減らす 雇用.
虫垂 to 一時期／支部 14
I
There is no 連続した discussion of the 率 of 利益／興味 in the 作品 of Marshall, Edgeworth or Professor Pigou,ｾnothing more than a few obiter dicta. Apart from the passage already 引用するd above (p. 139) the only important 手がかり（を与える）s to Marshall's position on the 率 of 利益／興味 are to be 設立する in his 原則s of 経済的なs (6th edn.), 調書をとる／予約する VI. p. 534 and p. 593, the gist of which is given by the に引き続いて quotations:
'利益／興味, 存在 the price paid for the use of 資本／首都 in any market, tends に向かって an equilibrium level such that the aggregate 需要・要求する for 資本／首都 in that market, at that 率 of 利益／興味, is equal to the aggregate 在庫／株 来たるべき there at that 率. If the market, which we are considering, is a small oneｾsay a 選び出す／独身 town, or a 選び出す／独身 貿易（する） in a 進歩／革新的な countryｾan 増加するd 需要・要求する for 資本／首都 in it will be 敏速に met by an 増加するd 供給（する） drawn from surrounding 地区s or 貿易（する）s. But if we are considering the whole world, or even the whole of a large country, as one market for 資本／首都, we cannot regard the aggregate 供給（する） of it as altered quickly and to a かなりの extent by a change in the 率 of 利益／興味. For the general 基金 of 資本／首都 is the 製品 of 労働 and waiting; and the extra work, and the extra waiting, to which a rise in the 率 of 利益／興味 would 行為／法令／行動する as an incentive, would not quickly 量 to much, as compared with the work and waiting, of which the total 存在するing 在庫／株 of 資本／首都 is the result. An 広範囲にわたる 増加する in the 需要・要求する for 資本／首都 in general will therefore be met for a time not so much by an 増加する of 供給（する）, as by a rise in the 率 of 利益／興味; which will 原因（となる） 資本／首都 to 身を引く itself 部分的に／不公平に from those uses in which its ごくわずかの 公共事業（料金）／有用性 is lowest. It is only slowly and 徐々に that the rise in the 率 of 利益／興味 will 増加する the total 在庫／株 of 資本／首都' (p.534).
'It cannot be repeated too often that the phrase "the 率 of 利益／興味" is applicable to old 投資s of 資本／首都 only in a very 限られた／立憲的な sense. For instance, we may perhaps 見積（る） that a 貿易（する） 資本／首都 of some seven thousand millions is 投資するd in the different 貿易（する）s of this country at about 3 per cent 逮捕する 利益／興味. But such a method of speaking, though convenient and 正当と認められる for many 目的s, is not 正確な. What せねばならない be said is that, taking the 率 of 逮捕する 利益／興味 on the 投資s of new 資本／首都 in each of those 貿易（する）s [i.e. on ごくわずかの 投資s] to be about 3 per cent; then the aggregate 逮捕する income （判決などを）下すd by the whole of the 貿易（する）-資本／首都 投資するd in the さまざまな 貿易（する）s is such that, if capitalised at 33 years' 購入（する） (that is, on the basis of 利益／興味 at 3 per cent), it would 量 to some seven thousand million 続けざまに猛撃するs. For the value of the 資本／首都 already 投資するd in 改善するing land or 築くing a building, in making a 鉄道 or a machine, is the aggregate 割引d value of its 概算の 未来 逮捕する incomes [or quasi-rents]; and if its 見込みのある income-産する／生じるing 力／強力にする should 減らす, its value would 落ちる accordingly and would be the capitalised value of that smaller income after 許すing for 価値低下' (p.593).
In his 経済的なs of 福利事業 (3rd edn.), p. 163, Professor Pigou 令状s: 'The nature of the service of "waiting" has been much misunderstood. いつかs it has been supposed to consist in the 準備／条項 of money, いつかs in the 準備／条項 of time, and, on both suppositions, it has been argued that no 出資／貢献 whatever is made by it to the （株主への）配当. Neither supposition is 訂正する. "Waiting" 簡単に means 延期するing 消費 which a person has 力／強力にする to enjoy すぐに, thus 許すing 資源s, which might have been destroyed, to assume the form of 生産／産物 器具s. The 部隊 of "waiting" is, therefore, the use of a given 量 of 資源s ｾfor example, 労働 or 機械／機構ｾfor a given time. . . In more general 条件 we may say that the 部隊 of waiting is a year-value-部隊, or, in the simpler, if いっそう少なく 正確な, language of Dr Cassel, a year-続けざまに猛撃する. . . A 警告を与える may be 追加するd against the ありふれた 見解（をとる） that the 量 of 資本／首都 蓄積するd in any year is やむを得ず equal to the 量 of "貯金" made in it. This is not so, even when 貯金 are 解釈する／通訳するd to mean 逮捕する 貯金, thus 除去するing the 貯金 of one man that are lent to 増加する the 消費 of another, and when 一時的な accumulations of 未使用の （人命などを）奪う，主張するs upon services in the form of bank-money are ignored; for many 貯金 which are meant to become 資本／首都 in fact fail of their 目的 through misdirection into wasteful uses.'
Professor Pigou's only 重要な 言及／関連 to what 決定するs the 率 of 利益／興味 is, I think, to be 設立する in his 産業の Fluctuations (1st edn.), pp. 251-3, where he controverts the 見解（をとる） that the 率 of 利益／興味, 存在 決定するd by the general 条件s of 需要・要求する and 供給（する） of real 資本／首都, lies outside the central or any other bank's 支配（する）／統制する. Against this 見解（をとる） he argues that: 'When 銀行業者s create more credit for 商売／仕事 men, they make, in their 利益／興味, 支配する to the explanations given in 一時期／支部 xiii. of part i., a 軍隊d 徴収する of real things from the public, thus 増加するing the stream of real 資本／首都 利用できる for them, and 原因（となる）ing a 落ちる in the real 率 of 利益／興味 on long and short 貸付金s alike. It is true, in short, that the 銀行業者s' 率 for money is bound by a mechanical tie to the real 率 of 利益／興味 on long 貸付金s; but it is not true that this real 率 is 決定するd by 条件s wholly outside 銀行業者s' 支配（する）／統制する.'
My running comments on the above have been made in the
footnotes. The perplexity which I find in Marshall's account of
the 事柄 is fundamentally 予定, I think, to the 急襲 of the
概念 '利益／興味', which belongs to a 通貨の economy, into a
treatise which takes no account of money. '利益／興味' has really
no 商売／仕事 to turn up at all in Marshall's 原則s of
経済的なs,ｾit belongs to another
支店 of the 支配する.
Professor Pigou, conformably with his other tacit 仮定／引き受けることs,
leads us (in his 経済的なs of 福利事業) to infer that the
部隊 of waiting is the same as the 部隊 of 現在の 投資 and
that the reward of waiting is quasi-rent, and 事実上 never
について言及するs 利益／興味, which is as it should be. にもかかわらず these
writers are not 取引，協定ing with a 非，不，無-通貨の economy (if there is
such a thing). They やめる 明確に 推定する that money is used and
that there is a banking system. Moreover, the 率 of 利益／興味
scarcely plays a larger part in Professor Pigou's 産業の
Fluctuations (which is おもに a 熟考する／考慮する of fluctuations in the
ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都) or in his Theory of
失業 (which is おもに a 熟考する／考慮する of what 決定するs
changes in the 容積／容量 of 雇用, assuming that there is no
involuntary 失業) than in his 経済的なs of 福利事業.
II
The に引き続いて from his 原則s of Political Economy (p. 511) puts the 実体 of Ricardo's theory of the 率 of 利益／興味:
'The 利益／興味 of money is not 規制するd by the 率 at which the Bank will lend, whether it be 5, 3 or 2 per cent., but by the 率 of 利益（をあげる） which can be made by the 雇用 of 資本／首都, and which is 全く 独立した・無所属 of the 量 or of the value of money. Whether the Bank lent one million, ten millions, or a hundred millions, they would not 永久的に alter the market 率 of 利益／興味; they would alter only the value of the money which they thus 問題／発行するd. In one 事例／患者, ten or twenty times more money might be 要求するd to carry on the same 商売／仕事 than what might be 要求するd in the other. The 使用／適用s to the Bank for money, then, depend on the comparison between the 率 of 利益（をあげる）s that may be made by the 雇用 of it, and the 率 at which they are willing to lend it. If they 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金 いっそう少なく than the market 率 of 利益／興味, there is no 量 of money which they might not lend;ｾif they 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金 more than that 率, 非，不，無 but spendthrifts and prodigals would be 設立する to borrow of them.'
This is so （疑いを）晴らす-削減（する） that it affords a better starting-point
for a discussion than the phrases of later writers who, without
really 出発／死ing from the essence of the Ricardian doctrine, are
にもかかわらず 十分に uncomfortable about it to 捜し出す 避難
in haziness. The above is, of course, as always with Ricardo, to
be 解釈する／通訳するd as a long-period doctrine, with the 強調 on
the word '永久的に' half-way through the passage; and it is
利益／興味ing to consider the 仮定／引き受けることs 要求するd to 実証する it.
Once again the 仮定／引き受けること 要求するd is the usual classical 仮定／引き受けること, that there is always 十分な 雇用; so that, assuming no change in the 供給（する） curve of 労働 ーに関して／ーの点でs of 製品, there is only one possible level of 雇用 in long-period equilibrium. On this 仮定／引き受けること with the usual ceteris paribus, i.e. no change in psychological propensities and 期待s other than those arising out of a change in the 量 of money, the Ricardian theory is valid, in the sense that on these suppositions there is only one 率 of 利益／興味 which will be 両立できる with 十分な 雇用 in the long period. Ricardo and his 後継者s overlook the fact that even in the long period the 容積／容量 of 雇用 is not やむを得ず 十分な but is 有能な of 変化させるing, and that to every banking 政策 there corresponds a different long-period level of 雇用; so that there are a number of positions of long-period equilibrium corresponding to different 考えられる 利益／興味 政策s on the part of the 通貨の 当局.
If Ricardo had been content to 現在の his argument 単独で as
適用するing to any given 量 of money created by the 通貨の
当局, it would still have been 訂正する on the 仮定／引き受けること of
柔軟な money-給料. If, that is to say, Ricardo had argued that
it would make no 永久の alteration to the 率 of 利益／興味
whether the 量 of money was 直す／買収する，八百長をするd by the 通貨の 当局
at ten millions or at a hundred millions, his 結論 would
持つ／拘留する. But if by the 政策 of the 通貨の 当局 we mean the
条件 on which it will 増加する or 減少（する） the 量 of
money, i.e. the 率 of 利益／興味 at which it will, either by a
change in the 容積／容量 of 割引s or by open-market 操作／手術s,
増加する or 減少（する） its 資産sｾwhich
is what Ricardo expressly does mean in the above quotationｾthen it is not the 事例／患者 either that the
政策 of the 通貨の 当局 is nugatory or that only one
政策 is 両立できる with long-period equilibrium; though in the
extreme 事例／患者 where money-給料 are assumed to 落ちる without 限界
in 直面する of involuntary 失業 through a futile 競争
for 雇用 between the 失業した labourers, there will, it
is true, be only two possible long-period positionsｾ十分な 雇用 and the level of
雇用 corresponding to the 率 of 利益／興味 at which
liquidity-preference becomes 絶対の (in the event of this 存在
いっそう少なく than 十分な 雇用). Assuming 柔軟な money-給料, the
量 of money as such is, indeed, nugatory in the long
period; but the 条件 on which the 通貨の 当局 will change
the 量 of money enters as a real determinant into the
経済的な 計画／陰謀.
It is 価値（がある） 追加するing that the 結論するing 宣告，判決s of the
quotation 示唆する that Ricardo was overlooking the possible
changes in the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 によれば the
量 投資するd. But this again can be 解釈する／通訳するd as another
example of his greater 内部の consistency compared with his
後継者s. For if the 量 of 雇用 and the
psychological propensities of the community are taken as given,
there is in fact only one possible 率 of accumulation of
資本／首都 and, その結果, only one possible value for the
ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都. Ricardo 申し込む／申し出s us the 最高の
知識人 業績／成就, unattainable by 女性 spirits, of
可決する・採択するing a hypothetical world remote from experience as though it
were the world of experience and then living in it 終始一貫して.
With most of his 後継者s ありふれた sense cannot help breaking inｾwith 傷害 to their 論理（学）の consistency.
III
A peculiar theory of the 率 of 利益／興味 has been propounded by Professor 出身の Mises and 可決する・採択するd from him by Professor Hayek and also, I think, by Professor Robbins; すなわち, that changes in the 率 of 利益／興味 can be identified with changes in the 親族 price levels of 消費-goods and 資本／首都-goods It is not （疑いを）晴らす how this 結論 is reached. But the argument seems to run as follows. By a somewhat 激烈な simplification the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 is taken as 手段d by the 割合 of the 供給（する） price of new 消費者s' goods to the 供給（する） price of new 生産者s' goods. This is then identified with the 率 of 利益／興味. The fact is called to notice that a 落ちる in the 率 of 利益／興味 is favourable to 投資. Ergo, a 落ちる in the 割合 of the price of 消費者s' goods to the price of 生産者's goods is favourable to 投資.
By this means a link is 設立するd between tncreased saving
by an individual and 増加するd aggregate 投資. For it is
ありふれた gound that 増加するd individual saving will 原因（となる） a 落ちる
in the price of 消費者s' goods, and, やめる かもしれない, a greater 落ちる than in the price of 生産者s' goods; hence,
によれば the above 推論する／理由ing, it means a 削減 in the
率 of 利益／興味 which will 刺激する 投資. But, of course,
a lowering of the ごくわずかの efficiency of particular 資本／首都
資産s, and hence a lowering of the schedule of the ごくわずかの
efficiency of 資本／首都 in general, has 正確に／まさに the opposite 影響
to what the above argument assumes. For 投資 is 刺激するd
either by a raising of the schedule of the ごくわずかの
efficiency or by a lowering of the 率 of 利益／興味. As a
result of 混乱させるing the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 with the
率 of 利益／興味, Professor 出身の Mises and his disciples have got
their 結論s 正確に／まさに the wrong way 一連の会議、交渉／完成する. A good example of
a 混乱 along these lines is given by the に引き続いて passage
by Professor Alvin Hansen:
'It has been 示唆するd by some 経済学者s that the 逮捕する 影響 of
減ずるd spending will be a lower price level of 消費者s' goods
than would さもなければ have been the 事例／患者, and that, in
consequence, the 刺激 to 投資 in 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 資本／首都 would
その為に tend to be minimised. This 見解（をとる） is, however, incorrect
and is based on a 混乱 of the 影響 on 資本／首都 形式 of
(i) higher or lower prices of 消費者s' goods, and (2) a change
in the 率 of 利益／興味. It is true that in consequence of the
減少（する）d spending and 増加するd saving, 消費者s' prices would
be low 親族 to the prices of 生産者s' goods. But this, in
影響, means a lower 率 of 利益／興味, and a lower 率 of
利益／興味 刺激するs an 拡大 of 資本／首都 投資 in fields
which at higher 率s would be 無益な.'
一時期／支部 15
I
We must now develop in more 詳細（に述べる） the 分析 of the 動機s to liquidity-preference which were introduced in a 予選 way in 一時期／支部 13. The 支配する is 大幅に the same as that which has been いつかs discussed under the 長，率いるing of the 需要・要求する for money. It is also closely connected with what is called the income-velocity of money;ｾfor the income-velocity of money 単に 対策 what 割合 of their incomes the public chooses to 持つ／拘留する in cash, so that an 増加するd income-velocity of money may be a symptom of a 減少（する）d liquidity-preference. It is not the same thing, however, since it is in 尊敬（する）・点 of his 在庫／株 of 蓄積するd 貯金, rather than of his income, that the individual can 演習 his choice between liquidity and illiquidity. And, anyhow, the 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 'income-velocity of money' carries with it the 誤って導くing suggestion of a presumption in favour of the 需要・要求する for money as a whole 存在 比例する, or having some determinate relation, to income, 反して this presumption should 適用する, as we shall see, only to a 部分 of the public's cash holdings; with the result that it overlooks the part played by the 率 of 利益／興味.
In my Treatise on Money I 熟考する／考慮するd the total 需要・要求する for money under the headings of income-deposits, 商売／仕事-deposits, and 貯金-deposits, and I need not repeat here the 分析 which I gave in 一時期／支部 3 of that 調書をとる／予約する. Money held for each of the three 目的s forms, にもかかわらず, a 選び出す／独身 pool, which the 支えるもの／所有者 is under no necessity to segregate into three water-tight compartments; for they need not be はっきりと divided even in his own mind, and the same sum can be held まず第一に／本来 for one 目的 and secondarily for another. Thus we canｾ平等に 井戸／弁護士席, and, perhaps, betterｾconsider the individual's aggregate 需要・要求する for money in given circumstances as a 選び出す／独身 決定／判定勝ち（する）, though the 合成物 result of a number of different 動機s.
In analysing the 動機s, however, it is still convenient to 分類する them under 確かな headings, the first of which 概して corresponds to the former 分類 of income-deposits and 商売／仕事-deposits, and the two latter to that of 貯金-deposits. These I have 簡潔に introduced in 一時期／支部 13 under the headings of the 処理／取引s-動機, which can be その上の 分類するd as the income-動機 and the 商売／仕事-動機, the 予防の-動機 and the 思索的な-動機.
(i) The Income-動機. One 推論する／理由 for 持つ／拘留するing cash is to 橋（渡しをする） the interval between the 領収書 of income and its disbursement. The strength of this 動機 in inducing a 決定／判定勝ち（する） to 持つ／拘留する a given aggregate of cash will 主として depend on the 量 of income and the normal length of the interval between its 領収書 and its disbursement. It is in this 関係 that the 概念 of the income-velocity of money is 厳密に appropriate.
(ii) The 商売／仕事-動機. 類似して, cash is held to 橋（渡しをする） the interval between the time of incurring 商売／仕事 costs and that of the 領収書 of the sale-proceeds; cash held by 売買業者s to 橋（渡しをする） the interval between 購入（する） and realisation 存在 含むd under this 長，率いるing. The strength of this 需要・要求する will 主として depend on the value of 現在の 生産（高） (and hence on 現在の income), and on the number of 手渡すs through which 生産（高） passes.
(iii) The 予防の-動機. To 供給する for contingencies 要求するing sudden 支出 and for unforeseen 適切な時期s of advantageous 購入（する）s, and also to 持つ／拘留する an 資産 of which the value is 直す／買収する，八百長をするd ーに関して／ーの点でs of money to 会合，会う a その後の 義務／負債 直す／買収する，八百長をするd ーに関して／ーの点でs of money, are その上の 動機s for 持つ／拘留するing cash.
The strength of all these three types of 動機 will partly depend on the cheapness and the reliability of methods of 得るing cash, when it is 要求するd, by some form of 一時的な borrowing, in particular by overdraft or its 同等（の）. For there is no necessity to 持つ／拘留する idle cash to 橋（渡しをする） over intervals if it can be 得るd without difficulty at the moment when it is 現実に 要求するd. Their strength will also depend on what we may 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 the 親族 cost of 持つ／拘留するing cash. If the cash can only be 保持するd by forgoing the 購入（する） of a profitable 資産, this 増加するs the cost and thus 弱めるs the 動機 に向かって 持つ／拘留するing a given 量 of cash. If deposit 利益／興味 is earned or if bank 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金s are 避けるd by 持つ／拘留するing cash, this 減少（する）s the cost and 強化するs the 動機. It may be, however, that this is likely to be a minor factor except where large changes in the cost of 持つ／拘留するing cash are in question.
(iv) There remains the 思索的な-動機. This needs a more 詳細（に述べる）d examination than the others, both because it is いっそう少なく 井戸／弁護士席 understood and because it is 特に important in transmitting the 影響s of a change in the 量 of money.
In normal circumstances the 量 of money 要求するd to 満足させる the 処理／取引s-動機 and the 予防の-動機 is おもに a resultant of the general activity of the 経済的な system and of the level of money-income. But it is by playing on the 思索的な-動機 that 通貨の 管理／経営 (or, in the absence of 管理／経営, chance changes in the 量 of money) is brought to 耐える on the 経済的な system. For the 需要・要求する for money to 満足させる the former 動機s is 一般に irresponsive to any 影響（力） except the actual occurrence of a change in the general 経済的な activity and the level of incomes; 反して experience 示すs that the aggregate 需要・要求する for money to 満足させる the 思索的な-動機 usually shows a continuous 返答 to 漸進的な changes in the 率 of 利益／興味, i.e. there is a continuous curve relating changes in the 需要・要求する for money to 満足させる the 思索的な 動機 and changes in the 率 of 利益／興味 as given by changes in the prices of 社債s and 負債s of さまざまな 成熟s.
Indeed, if this were not so, 'open market 操作／手術s' would be impracticable. I have said that experience 示すs the continuous 関係 明言する／公表するd above, because in normal circumstances the banking system is in fact always able to 購入（する） (or sell) 社債s in 交流 for cash by bidding the price of 社債s up (or 負かす／撃墜する) in the market by a modest 量; and the larger the 量 of cash which they 捜し出す to create (or 取り消す) by 購入（する）ing (or selling) 社債s and 負債s, the greater must be the 落ちる (or rise) in the 率 of 利益／興味. Where, however, (as in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs, 1933-1934) open-market 操作／手術s have been 限られた／立憲的な to the 購入（する） of very short-時代遅れの 安全s, the 影響 may, of course, be おもに 限定するd to the very short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 率 of 利益／興味 and have but little reaction on the much more important long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 率s of 利益／興味.
In 取引，協定ing with the 思索的な-動機 it is, however, important to distinguish between the changes in the 率 of 利益／興味 which are 予定 to changes in the 供給（する） of money 利用できる to 満足させる the 思索的な-動機, without there having been any change in the liquidity 機能（する）／行事, and those which are まず第一に／本来 予定 to changes in 期待 影響する／感情ing the liquidity 機能（する）／行事 itself. Open-market 操作／手術s may, indeed, 影響（力） the 率 of 利益／興味 through both channels; since they may not only change the 容積／容量 of money, but may also give rise to changed 期待s 関心ing the 未来 政策 of the central bank or of the 政府. Changes in the liquidity 機能（する）／行事 itself; 予定 to a change in the news which 原因（となる）s 改正 of 期待s, will often be discontinuous, and will, therefore, give rise to a corresponding discontinuity of change in the 率 of 利益／興味. Only, indeed, in so far as the change in the news is 異なって 解釈する／通訳するd by different individuals or 影響する／感情s individual lnterests 異なって will there be room for any 増加するd activity of 取引，協定ing in the 社債 market. If the change in the news 影響する／感情s the judgment and the 必要物／必要条件s of everyone in 正確に the same way, the 率 of 利益／興味 (as 示すd by the prices of 社債s and 負債s) will be adjusted forthwith to the new 状況／情勢 without any market 処理／取引s 存在 necessary.
Thus, in the simplest 事例／患者, where everyone is 類似の and 類似して placed, a change in circumstances or 期待s will not be 有能な of 原因（となる）ing any 排水（気）量 of money whatever;ｾit will 簡単に change the 率 of 利益／興味 in whatever degree is necessary to 相殺する the 願望（する） of each individual, felt at the previous 率, to change his 持つ／拘留するing of cash in 返答 to the new circumstances or 期待s; and, since everyone will change his ideas as to the 率 which would induce him to alter his holdings of cash in the same degree, no 処理／取引s will result. To each 始める，決める of circumstances and 期待s there will correspond an appropriate 率 of 利益／興味, and there will never be any question of anyone changing his usual holdings of cash.
In general, however, a change in circumstances or 期待s
will 原因（となる） some 再編成 in individual holdings of money;ｾsince, in fact, a change will 影響（力）
the ideas of different individuals 異なって by 推論する／理由s partly
of differences in 環境 and the 推論する／理由 for which money is
held and partly of differences in knowledge and 解釈／通訳 of
the new 状況／情勢. Thus the new equilibrium 率 of 利益／興味 will
be associated with a 議席数是正 of money-holdings.
にもかかわらず it is the change in the 率 of 利益／興味, rather
than the 議席数是正 of cash, which deserves our main
attention. The latter is incidental to individual differences,
反して the 必須の 現象 is that which occurs in the
simplest 事例／患者. Moreover, even in the general 事例／患者, the 転換 in
the 率 of 利益／興味 is usually the most 目だつ part of the
reaction to a change in the news. The movement in 社債-prices is,
as the newspapers are accustomed to say, 'out of all 割合
to the activity of 取引，協定ing';ｾwhich is
as it should be, in 見解（をとる） of individuals 存在 much more 類似の
than they are dissimilar in their reaction to news.
II
Whilst the 量 of cash which an individual decides to 持つ／拘留する
to 満足させる the 処理／取引s-動機 and the 予防の-動機
is not 完全に 独立した・無所属 of what he is 持つ／拘留するing to 満足させる the
思索的な-動機, it is a 安全な first approximation to regard
the 量s of these two 始める，決めるs of cash-holdings as 存在 大部分は
独立した・無所属 of one another. Let us, therefore, for the 目的s
of our その上の 分析, break up our problem in this way. Let
the 量 of cash held to 満足させる the 処理／取引s- and
予防の-動機s be M1, and the 量
held to 満足させる the 思索的な-動機 be M2.
Corresponding to these two compartments of cash, we then have two
liquidity 機能（する）／行事s L1 and L2.
L1 おもに depends on the level of income,
whilst L2 おもに depends on the relation
between the 現在の 率 of 利益／興味 and the 明言する／公表する of
期待. Thus
M = M1 + M2 = L1(Y) + L2(r),
where L1 is the liquidity 機能（する）／行事 corresponding to an income Y, which 決定するs M1, and L2 is the liquidity 機能（する）／行事 of the 率 of 利益／興味 r, which 決定するs M2. It follows that there are three 事柄s to 調査／捜査する: (i) the relation of changes in M to Y and r, (ii) what 決定するs the 形態／調整 of L1, (iii) what 決定するs the 形態／調整 of L2.
(i) The relation of changes in M to Y and r depends, in the first instance, on the way in which changes in M come about. Suppose that M consists of gold coins and that changes in M can only result from 増加するd returns to the activities of gold-鉱夫s who belong to the 経済的な system under examination. In this 事例／患者 changes in M are, in the first instance, 直接／まっすぐに associated with changes in Y, since the new gold accrues as someone's income. 正確に／まさに the same 条件s 持つ／拘留する if changes in M are 予定 to the 政府 printing money wherewith to 会合，会う its 現在の 支出;ｾin this 事例／患者 also the new money accrues as someone's income. The new level of income, however, will not continue 十分に high for the 必要物／必要条件s of M1 to 吸収する the whole of the 増加する in M; and some 部分 of the money will 捜し出す an 出口 in buying 安全s or other 資産s until r has fallen so as to bring about an 増加する in the magnitude of M2 and at the same time to 刺激する a rise in Y to such an extent that the new money is 吸収するd either in M2 or in the M1 which corresponds to the rise in Y 原因（となる）d by the 落ちる in r. Thus at one 除去する this 事例／患者 comes to the same thing as the 代案／選択肢 事例／患者, where the new money can only be 問題／発行するd in the first instance by a 緩和 of the 条件s of credit by the banking system, so as to induce someone to sell the banks a 負債 or a 社債 in 交流 for the new cash.
It will, therefore, be 安全な for us to take the latter 事例／患者 as typical. A change in M can be assumed to operate by changing r, and a change in r will lead to a new equilibrium partly by changing M2 and partly by changing Y and therefore M1. The 分割 of the increment of cash between M1 and M2 in the new position of equilibrium will depend on the 返答s of 投資 to a 削減 in the 率 of 利益／興味 and of income to an 増加する in 投資. Since Y partly depends on r, it follows that a given change in M has to 原因（となる） a 十分な change in r for the resultant changes in M1 and M2 それぞれ to 追加する up to the given change in M.
(ii) It is not always made （疑いを）晴らす whether the income-velocity of money is defined as the 割合 of Y to M or as the 割合 of Y to M1. I 提案する, however, to take it in the latter sense. Thus if V is the income-velocity of money,
Y
L1(Y) = ｾｾ = M1.
V
There is, of course, no 推論する／理由 for supposing that V is constant. Its value will depend on the character of banking and 産業の organisation, on social habits, on the 配当 of income between different classes and on the 効果的な cost of 持つ／拘留するing idle cash. にもかかわらず, if we have a short period of time in 見解（をとる） and can 安全に assume no 構成要素 change in any of these factors, we can 扱う／治療する V as nearly enough constant.
(iii) Finally there is the question of the relation between M2 and r. We have seen in 一時期／支部 13 that 不確定 as to the 未来 course of the 率 of 利益／興味 is the 単独の intelligible explanation of the type of liquidity-preference L2 which leads to the 持つ／拘留するing of cash M2. It follows that a given M2 will not have a 限定された quantitative relation to a given 率 of 利益／興味 of r;ｾwhat 事柄s is not the 絶対の level of r but the degree of its 相違 from what is considered a 公正に／かなり 安全な level of r, having regard to those 計算／見積りs of probability which are 存在 relied on. にもかかわらず, there are two 推論する／理由s for 推定する／予想するing that, in any given 明言する／公表する of 期待, a 落ちる in r will be associated with an 増加する in M2. In the first place, if the general 見解（をとる） as to what is a 安全な level of r is 不変の, every 落ちる in r 減ずるs the market 率 比較して to the '安全な' 率 and therefore 増加するs the 危険 of illiquidity; and, in the second place, every 落ちる in r 減ずるs the 現在の 収入s from illiquidity, which are 利用できる as a sort of 保険 賞与金 to 相殺する the 危険 of loss on 資本／首都 account, by an 量 equal to the difference between the squares of the old 率 of 利益／興味 and the new. For example, if the 率 of 利益／興味 on a long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 負債 is 4 per cent, it is より望ましい to sacrifice liquidity unless on a balance of probabilities it is 恐れるd that the long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 率 of 利益／興味 may rise faster than by 4 per cent of itself per 年, i.e. by an 量 greater than 0.16 per cent per 年. If, however, the 率 of 利益／興味 is already as low as 2 per cent, the running 産する／生じる will only 相殺する a rise in it of as little as 0.04 per cent per 年. This, indeed, is perhaps the 長，指導者 障害 to a 落ちる in the 率 of 利益／興味 to a very low level. Unless 推論する／理由s are believed to 存在する why 未来 experience will be very different from past experience, a long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 率 of 利益／興味 of (say) 2 per cent leaves more to 恐れる than to hope, and 申し込む／申し出s, at the same time, a running 産する／生じる which is only 十分な to 相殺する a very small 手段 of 恐れる.
It is evident, then, that the 率 of 利益／興味 is a 高度に psychological 現象. We shall find, indeed, in 調書をとる／予約する V that it cannot be in equilibrium at a level below the 率 which corresponds to 十分な 雇用; because at such a level a 明言する／公表する of true インフレーション will be produced, with the result that M1 will 吸収する ever-増加するing 量s of cash. But at a level above the 率 which corresponds to 十分な 雇用, the long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 market-率 of 利益／興味 will depend, not only on the 現在の 政策 of the 通貨の 当局, but also on market 期待s 関心ing its 未来 政策. The short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 率 of 利益／興味 is easily controlled by the 通貨の 当局, both because it is not difficult to produce a 有罪の判決 that its 政策 will not 大いに change in the very 近づく 未来, and also because the possible loss is small compared with the running 産する／生じる (unless it is approaching 消えるing point). But the long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 率 may be more recalcitrant when once it has fallen to a level which, on the basis of past experience and 現在の 期待s of 未来 通貨の 政策, is considered '危険な' by 代表者／国会議員 opinion. For example, in a country linked to an international gold 基準, a 率 of 利益／興味 lower than 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるs どこかよそで will be 見解（をとる）d with a 正当と認められる 欠如（する） of 信用／信任; yet a 国内の 率 of 利益／興味 dragged up to a parity with the highest 率 (highest after 許すing for 危険) 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing in any country belonging to the international system may be much higher than is 一貫した with 国内の 十分な 雇用.
Thus a 通貨の 政策 which strikes public opinion as 存在 実験の in character or easily liable to change may fail in its 客観的な of 大いに 減ずるing the long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 率 of 利益／興味, because M2 may tend to 増加する almost without 限界 in 返答 to a 削減 of r below a 確かな 人物／姿／数字. The same 政策, on the other 手渡す, may 証明する easily successful if it 控訴，上告s to public opinion as 存在 reasonable and practicable and in the public 利益／興味, rooted in strong 有罪の判決, and 促進するd by an 当局 ありそうもない to be superseded.
It might be more 正確な, perhaps, to say that the 率 of 利益／興味 is a 高度に 従来の, rather than a 高度に psychological, 現象. For its actual value is 大部分は 治める／統治するd by the 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing 見解（をとる） as to what its value is 推定する／予想するd to be. Any level of 利益／興味 which is 受託するd with 十分な 有罪の判決 as likely to be 持続する will be 持続する; 支配する, of course, in a changing society to fluctuations for all 肉親，親類d of 推論する／理由s 一連の会議、交渉／完成する the 推定する／予想するd normal. In particular, when M1 is 増加するing faster than M, the 率 of 利益／興味 will rise, and 副／悪徳行為 versa. But it may fluctuate for １０年間s about a level which is chronically too high for 十分な 雇用;ｾ特に if it is the 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing opinion that the 率 of 利益／興味 is self-adjusting, so that the level 設立するd by 条約 is thought to be rooted in 客観的な grounds much stronger than 条約, the 失敗 of 雇用 to 達成する an optimum level 存在 in no way associated, in the minds either of the public or of 当局, with the prevalence of an 不適切な 範囲 of 率s of 利益／興味.
The difficulties in the way of 持続するing 効果的な 需要・要求する at a level high enough to 供給する 十分な 雇用, which 続いて起こる from the 協会 of a 従来の and 公正に／かなり stable long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 率 of 利益／興味 with a fickle and 高度に 安定性のない ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都, should be, by now, obvious to the reader.
Such 慰安 as we can 公正に／かなり take from more encouraging
reflections must be drawn from the hope that, 正確に because
the 条約 is not rooted in 安全な・保証する knowledge, it will not be
always unduly 抵抗力のある to a modest 手段 of persistence and
consistency of 目的 by the 通貨の 当局. Public opinion
can be 公正に／かなり 速く accustomed to a modest 落ちる in the 率 of
利益／興味 and the 従来の 期待 of the 未来 may be
修正するd accordingly; thus 準備するing the way for a その上の
movementｾup to a point. The 落ちる in
the long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 率 of 利益／興味 in 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain after her
出発 from the gold 基準 供給するs an 利益／興味ing example
of this;ｾthe major movements were
影響d by a 一連の discontinuous jumps, as the liquidity
機能（する）／行事 of the public, having become accustomed to each
連続する 削減, became ready to 答える／応じる to some new
incentive in the news or in the 政策 of the 当局.
III
We can sum up the above in the proposition that in any given 明言する／公表する of 期待 there is in the minds of the public a 確かな potentiality に向かって 持つ／拘留するing cash beyond what is 要求するd by the 処理／取引s-動機 or the 予防の-動機, which will realise itself in actual cash-holdings in a degree which depends on the 条件 on which the 通貨の 当局 is willing to create cash. It is this potentiality which is summed up in the liquidity 機能（する）／行事 L2. Corresponding to the 量 of money created by the 通貨の 当局, there will, therefore, be cet. par. a determlnate 率 of 利益／興味 or, more 厳密に, a determinate コンビナート／複合体 of 率s of 利益／興味 for 負債s of different 成熟s. The same thing, however, would be true of any other factor in the 経済的な system taken 分かれて. Thus this particular 分析 will only be useful and 重要な in so far as there is some 特に direct or purposive 関係 between changes in the 量 of money and changes in the 率 of 利益／興味. Our 推論する／理由 for supposing that there is such a special 関係 arises from the fact that, 概して speaking, the banking system and the 通貨の 当局 are 売買業者s in money and 負債s and not in 資産s or consumables.
If the 通貨の 当局 were 用意が出来ている to 取引，協定 both ways on 明示するd 条件 in 負債s of all 成熟s, and even more so if it were 用意が出来ている to 取引，協定 in 負債s of 変化させるing degrees of 危険, the 関係 between the コンビナート／複合体 of 率s of 利益／興味 and the 量 of money would be direct. The コンビナート／複合体 of 率s of 利益／興味 would 簡単に be an 表現 of the 条件 on which the banking system is 用意が出来ている to acquire or part with 負債s; and the 量 of money would be the 量 which can find a home in the 所有／入手 of individuals whoｾafter taking account of all 関連した circumstancesｾprefer the 支配（する）／統制する of liquid cash to parting with it in 交流 for a 負債 on the 条件 示すd by the market 率 of 利益／興味. Perhaps a コンビナート／複合体 申し込む／申し出 by the central bank to buy and sell at 明言する／公表するd prices gilt-辛勝する／優位d 社債s of all 成熟s, in place of the 選び出す／独身 bank 率 for short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 法案s, is the most important practical 改良 which can be made in the technique of 通貨の 管理／経営.
To-day, however, in actual practice, the extent to which the
price of 負債s as 直す／買収する，八百長をするd by the banking system is '効果的な' in
the market, in the sense that it 治める／統治するs the actual market-price,
変化させるs in different systems. いつかs the price is more
効果的な in one direction than in the other; that is to say, the
banking system may 請け負う to 購入（する） 負債s at a 確かな price
but not やむを得ず to sell them at a 人物／姿／数字 近づく enough to its
buying-price to 代表する no more than a 売買業者's turn, though
there is no 推論する／理由 why the price should not be made 効果的な
both ways with the 援助（する） of open-market 操作／手術s. There is also
the more important 資格 which arises out of the 通貨の
当局 not 存在, as a 支配する, an 平等に willing 売買業者 in
負債s of all 成熟s. The 通貨の 当局 often tends in
practice to concentrate upon short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 負債s and to leave the
price of long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 負債s to be 影響（力）d by belated and
imperfect reactions from the price of short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 負債s;ｾthough here again there is no 推論する／理由 why
they need do so. Where these 資格s operate, the
directness of the relation between the 率 of 利益／興味 and the
量 of money is 対応して 修正するd. In 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain
the field of 審議する／熟考する 支配（する）／統制する appears to be 広げるing. But in
適用するing this theory in any particular 事例／患者 allowance must be
made for the special 特徴 of the method 現実に
雇うd by the 通貨の 当局. If the 通貨の 当局
取引，協定s only in short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 負債s, we have to consider what
影響（力） the price, actual and 見込みのある, of short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 負債s
演習s on 負債s of longer 成熟.
Thus there are 確かな 制限s on the ability of the 通貨の 当局 to 設立する any given コンビナート／複合体 of 率s of 利益／興味 for 負債s of different 条件 and 危険s, which can be summed up as follows:
(1) There are those 制限s which arise out of the 通貨の 当局's own practices in 限界ing its 乗り気 to 取引，協定 to 負債s of a particular type.
(2) There is the 可能性, for the 推論する／理由s discussed above, that, after the 率 of 利益／興味 has fallen to a 確かな level, liquidity-preference may become 事実上 絶対の in the sense that almost everyone prefers cash to 持つ／拘留するing a 負債 which 産する／生じるs so low a 率 of 利益／興味. In this event the 通貨の 当局 would have lost 効果的な 支配（する）／統制する over the 率 of 利益／興味. But whilst this 限界ing 事例／患者 might become 事実上 important in 未来, I know of no example of it hitherto. Indeed, 借りがあるing to the 不本意 of most 通貨の 当局 to 取引，協定 boldly in 負債s of long 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語, there has not been much 適切な時期 for a 実験（する）. Moreover, if such a 状況／情勢 were to arise, it would mean that the public 当局 itself could borrow through the banking system on an 制限のない 規模 at a 名目上の 率 of 利益／興味.
(3) The most striking examples of a 完全にする 決裂／故障 of 安定 in the 率 of 利益／興味, 予定 to the liquidity 機能（する）／行事 flattening out in one direction or the other, have occurred in very 異常な circumstances. In Russia and Central Europe after the war a 通貨 危機 or flight from the 通貨 was experienced, when no one could be induced to 保持する holdings either of money or of 負債s on any 条件 whatever, and even a high and rising 率 of 利益／興味 was unable to keep pace with the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 (特に of 在庫／株s of liquid goods) under the 影響（力） of the 期待 of an ever greater 落ちる in the value of money; whilst in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs at 確かな dates in 1932 there was a 危機 of the opposite 肉親，親類dｾa 財政上の 危機 or 危機 of liquidation, when scarcely anyone could be induced to part with holdings of money on any reasonable 条件.
(4) There is, finally, the difficulty discussed in
section IV of 一時期／支部 11, p. 144, in the way of bringing the
効果的な 率 of 利益／興味 below a 確かな 人物／姿／数字, which may
証明する important in an 時代 of low 利益／興味-率s; すなわち the
中間の costs of bringing the borrower and the ultimate
貸す人 together, and the allowance for 危険, 特に for moral
危険, which the 貸す人 要求するs over and above the pure 率 of
利益／興味. As the pure 率 of 利益／興味 拒絶する／低下するs it does not
follow that the allowances for expense and 危険 拒絶する／低下する pari
passu. Thus the 率 of 利益／興味 which the typical borrower
has to 支払う／賃金 may 拒絶する／低下する more slowly than the pure 率 of
利益／興味, and may be incapable of 存在 brought, by the methods
of the 存在するing banking and 財政上の organisation, below a
確かな 最小限 人物／姿／数字. This is 特に important if the
estimation of moral 危険 is appreciable. For where the 危険 is
予定 to 疑問 in the mind of the 貸す人 関心ing the honesty of
the borrower, there is nothing in the mind of a borrower who does
not ーするつもりである to be dishonest to 相殺する the resultant higher 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金.
It is also important in the 事例／患者 of short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 貸付金s (e.g. bank
貸付金s) where the expenses are 激しい;ｾa
bank may have to 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金 its 顧客s 1ｽ to 2 per cent., even if
the pure 率 of 利益／興味 to the 貸す人 is nil.
IV
At the cost of 心配するing what is more 適切に the 支配する of 一時期／支部 21 below it may be 利益／興味ing 簡潔に at this 行う／開催する／段階 to 示す the 関係 of the above to the 量 theory of money.
In a static society or in a society in which for any other 推論する／理由 no one feels any 不確定 about the 未来 率s of 利益／興味, the liquidity 機能（する）／行事 L2, or the propensity to hoard (as we might 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 it), will always be 無 in equilibrium. Hence in equilibrium M2 = 0 and M = M1; so that any change in M will 原因（となる） the 率 of 利益／興味 to fluctuate until income reaches a level at which the change in M1 is equal to the supposed change in M. Now M1 V = Y, where V is the income-velocity of money as defined above and Y is the aggregate income. Thus if it is practicable to 手段 the 量, O, and the price, P, of 現在の 生産（高）, we have Y = OP, and, therefore, MV = OP; which is much the same as the 量 theory of money in its 伝統的な form.
For the 目的s of the real world it is a 広大な／多数の／重要な fault in the
量 theory that it does not distinguish between changes in
prices which are a 機能（する）／行事 of changes in 生産（高）, and those which
are a 機能（する）／行事 of changes in the 行う-部隊.
The explanation of this omission is, perhaps, to be 設立する in the
仮定／引き受けることs that there is no propensity to hoard and that there
is always 十分な 雇用. For in this 事例／患者, O 存在
constant and M2 存在 無, it follows, if we
can take V also as constant, that both the 行う-部隊 and
the price-level will be 直接／まっすぐに 比例する to the 量 of
money.
一時期／支部 16
I
An 行為／法令／行動する of individual saving meansｾso to speakｾa 決定／判定勝ち（する） not to have dinner to-day. But it does not necessitate a 決定／判定勝ち（する） to have dinner or to buy a pair of boots a week hence or a year hence or to 消費する any 明示するd thing at any 明示するd date. Thus it depresses the 商売／仕事 of 準備するing to-day's dinner without 刺激するing the 商売／仕事 of making ready for some 未来 行為／法令／行動する of 消費. It is not a substitution of 未来 消費-需要・要求する for 現在の 消費-需要・要求する,ｾit is a 逮捕する diminution of such 需要・要求する. Moreover, the 期待 of 未来 消費 is so 大部分は based on 現在の experience of 現在の 消費 that a 削減 in the latter is likely to depress the former, with the result that the 行為／法令／行動する of saving will not 単に depress the price of 消費-goods and leave the ごくわずかの efficiency of 存在するing 資本／首都 影響を受けない, but may 現実に tend to depress the latter also. In this event it may 減ずる 現在の 投資-需要・要求する 同様に as 現在の 消費-需要・要求する.
If saving consisted not 単に in 棄権するing from 現在の 消費 but in placing 同時に a 明確な／細部 order for 未来 消費, the 影響 might indeed be different. For in that 事例／患者 the 期待 of some 未来 産する／生じる from 投資 would be 改善するd, and the 資源s 解放（する）d from 準備するing for 現在の 消費 could be turned over to 準備するing for the 未来 消費. Not that they やむを得ず would be, even in this 事例／患者, on a 規模 equal to the 量 of 資源s 解放（する）d; since the 願望（する）d interval of 延期する might 要求する a method of 生産／産物 so inconveniently 'roundabout' as to have an efficiency 井戸／弁護士席 below the 現在の 率 of 利益／興味, with the result that the favourable 影響 on 雇用 of the 今後 order for 消費 would eventuate not at once but at some その後の date, so that the 即座の 影響 of the saving would still be 逆の to 雇用. In any 事例／患者, however, an individual 決定／判定勝ち（する） to save does not, in actual fact, 伴う／関わる the placing of any 明確な／細部 今後 order for 消費, but 単に the 取り消し of a 現在の order. Thus, since the 期待 of 消費 is the only raison d'黎re of 雇用, there should be nothing paradoxical in the 結論 that a 減らすd propensity to 消費する has cet. par. a depressing 影響 on 雇用.
The trouble arises, therefore, because the 行為／法令／行動する of saving
暗示するs, not a substitution for 現在の 消費 of some
明確な／細部 付加 消費 which 要求するs for its
準備 just as much 即座の 経済的な activity as would
have been 要求するd by 現在の 消費 equal in value to the
sum saved, but a 願望（する） for 'wealth' as such, that is for a
potentiality of 消費するing an 明示していない article at an
明示していない time. The absurd, though almost 全世界の／万国共通の, idea that
an 行為／法令／行動する of individual saving is just as good for 効果的な 需要・要求する
as an 行為／法令／行動する of individual 消費, has been fostered by the
fallacy, much more specious than the 結論 derived from it,
that an 増加するd 願望（する） to 持つ／拘留する wealth, 存在 much the same
thing as an 増加するd 願望（する） to 持つ／拘留する 投資s, must, by
増加するing the 需要・要求する for 投資s, 供給する a 刺激 to
their 生産／産物; so that 現在の 投資 is 促進するd by
individual saving to the same extent as 現在の 消費 is
減らすd.
It is of this fallacy that it is most difficult to disabuse men's minds. It comes from believing that the owner of wealth 願望（する）s a 資本／首都-資産 as such, 反して what he really 願望（する）s is its 見込みのある 産する／生じる. Now, 見込みのある 産する／生じる wholly depends on the 期待 of 未来 効果的な 需要・要求する in relation to 未来 条件s of 供給（する）. If, therefore, an 行為／法令／行動する of saving does nothing to 改善する 見込みのある 産する／生じる, it does nothing to 刺激する 投資. Moreover, in order that an individual saver may 達成する his 願望（する）d goal of the 所有権 of wealth, it is not necessary that a new 資本／首都-資産 should be produced wherewith to 満足させる him. The mere 行為／法令／行動する of saving by one individual, 存在 two-味方するd as we have shown above, 軍隊s some other individual to 移転 to him some article of wealth old or new. Every 行為／法令／行動する of saving 伴う／関わるs a '軍隊d' 必然的な 移転 of wealth to him who saves, though he in his turn may を煩う the saving of others. These 移転s of wealth do not 要求する the 創造 of new wealthｾindeed, as we have seen, they may be 活発に inimical to it. The 創造 of new wealth wholly depends on the 見込みのある 産する／生じる of the new wealth reaching the 基準 始める，決める by the 現在の 率 of 利益／興味. The 見込みのある 産する／生じる of the ごくわずかの new 投資 is not 増加するd by the fact that someone wishes to 増加する his wealth, since the 見込みのある 産する／生じる of the ごくわずかの new 投資 depends on the 期待 of a 需要・要求する for a 明確な／細部 article at a 明確な／細部 date.
Nor do we 避ける this 結論 by arguing that what the owner of wealth 願望（する）s is not a given 見込みのある 産する／生じる but the best 利用できる 見込みのある 産する／生じる, so that an 増加するd 願望（する） to own wealth 減ずるs the 見込みのある 産する／生じる with which the 生産者s of new 投資 have to be content. For this overlooks the fact that there is always an 代案／選択肢 to the 所有権 of real 資本／首都-資産s, すなわち the 所有権 of money and 負債s; so that the 見込みのある 産する／生じる with which the 生産者s of new 投資 have to be content cannot 落ちる below the 基準 始める，決める by the 現在の 率 of 利益／興味. And the 現在の 率 of 利益／興味 depends, as we have seen, not on the strength of the 願望（する） to 持つ／拘留する wealth, but on the strengths of the 願望（する）s to 持つ／拘留する it in liquid and in illiquid forms それぞれ, coupled with the 量 of the 供給（する） of wealth in the one form 比較して to the 供給（する） of it in the other. If the reader still finds himself perplexed, let him ask himself why, the 量 of money bcing 不変の, a fresh 行為／法令／行動する of saving should 減らす the sum which it is 願望（する）d to keep in liquid form at the 存在するing 率 of 利益／興味.
確かな deeper perplexities, which may arise when we try to
調査（する） still その上の into the whys and wherefores, will be
considered in the next 一時期／支部.
II
It is much より望ましい to speak of 資本／首都 as having a 産する／生じる over the course of its life in 超過 of its 初めの cost, than as 存在 生産力のある. For the only 推論する／理由 why an 資産 申し込む／申し出s a prospect of 産する／生じるing during its life services having an aggregate value greater than its 初期の 供給（する） price is because it is 不十分な; and it is kept 不十分な because of the 競争 of the 率 of 利益／興味 on money. If 資本／首都 becomes いっそう少なく 不十分な, the 超過 産する／生じる will 減らす, without its having become いっそう少なく 生産力のあるｾat least in the physical sense.
I sympathise, therefore, with the pre-classical doctrine that everything is produced by 労働, 補佐官d by what used to be called art and is now called technique, by natural 資源s which are 解放する／自由な or cost a rent によれば their scarcity or 豊富, and by the results of past 労働, 具体的に表現するd in 資産s, which also 命令（する） a price によれば their scarcity or 豊富. It is より望ましい to regard 労働, 含むing, of course, the personal services of the entrepreneur and his assistants, as the 単独の factor of 生産／産物, operating in a given 環境 of technique, natural 資源s, 資本／首都 器具／備品 and 効果的な 需要・要求する. This partly explains why we have been able to take the 部隊 of 労働 as the 単独の physical 部隊 which we 要求する in our 経済的な system, apart from 部隊s of money and of time.
It is true that some 非常に長い or roundabout 過程s are 肉体的に efficient. But so are some short 過程s. 非常に長い 過程s are not 肉体的に efficient because they are long. Some, probably most, 非常に長い 過程s would be 肉体的に very inefficient, for there are such things as spoiling or wasting with time. With a given 労働 軍隊 there is a 限定された 限界 to the 量 of 労働 具体的に表現するd in roundabout 過程s which can be used to advantage. Apart from other considerations, there must be a 予定 割合 between the 量 of 労働 雇うd in making machines and the 量 which will be 雇うd in using them. The ultimate 量 of value will not 増加する 無期限に／不明確に, 比較して to the 量 of 労働 雇うd, as the 過程s 可決する・採択するd become more and more roundabout, even if their physical efficiency is still 増加するing. Only if the 願望（する） to 延期する 消費 were strong enough to produce a 状況／情勢 in which 十分な 雇用 要求するd a 容積／容量 of 投資 so 広大な／多数の／重要な as to 伴う／関わる a 消極的な ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都, would a 過程 become advantageous 単に because it was 非常に長い; in which event we should 雇う 肉体的に inefficient 過程s, 供給するd they were 十分に 非常に長い for the 伸び（る） from 延期 to outweigh their inefficiency. We should in fact have a 状況／情勢 in which short 過程s would have to be kept 十分に 不十分な for their physical efficiency to outweigh the disadvantage of the 早期に 配達／演説／出産 of their 製品. A 訂正する theory, therefore, must be reversible so as to be able to cover the 緩和するs of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 corresponding either to a 肯定的な or to a 消極的な 率 of 利益／興味; and it is, I think, only the scarcity theory 輪郭（を描く）d above which is 有能な of this.
Moreover there are all sorts of 推論する／理由s why さまざまな 肉親，親類d of services and 施設s are 不十分な and therefore expensive refatively to the 量 of 労働 伴う／関わるd. For example, smelly 過程s 命令（する） a higher reward, because people will not 請け負う them さもなければ. So do risky 過程s. But we do not 工夫する a 生産性 theory of smelly or risky 過程s as such. In short, not all 労働 is 遂行するd in 平等に agreeable attendant circumstances; and 条件s of equilibrium 要求する that articles produced in いっそう少なく agreeable attendant circumstances (characterised by smelliness, 危険 or the lapse of time) must be kept 十分に 不十分な to 命令（する） a higher price. But if the lapse of time becomes an agreeable attendant circumstance, which is a やめる possible 事例／患者 and already 持つ／拘留するs for many individuals, then, as I have said above, it is the short 過程s which must be kept 十分に 不十分な.
Given the optimum 量 of roundaboutness, we shall, of course, select the most efficient roundabout 過程s which we can find up to the 要求するd aggregate. But the optimum 量 itself should be such as to 供給する at the appropriate dates for that part of 消費者s' 需要・要求する which it is 願望（する）d to defer. In optimum 条件s, that is to say, 生産／産物 should be so organised as to produce in the most efficient manner 両立できる with 配達／演説／出産 at the dates at which 消費者s' 需要・要求する is 推定する／予想するd to become 効果的な. It is no use to produce for 配達／演説／出産 at a different date from this, even though the physical 生産（高） could be 増加するd by changing the date of 配達／演説／出産;ｾexcept in so far as the prospect of a larger meal, so to speak, induces the 消費者 to 心配する or 延期する the hour of dinner. If, after 審理，公聴会 十分な particulars of the meals he can get by 直す／買収する，八百長をするing dinner at different hours, the 消費者 is 推定する／予想するd to decide in favour of 8 o'clock, it is the 商売／仕事 of the cook to 供給する the best dinner he can for service at that hour, irrespective of whether 7.30, 8 o'clock or 8.30 is the hour which would 控訴 him best if time counted for nothing, one way or the other, and his only 仕事 was to produce the 絶対 best dinner. In some 段階s of society it may be that we could get 肉体的に better dinners by dining later than we do; but it is 平等に 考えられる in other 段階s that we could get better dinners by dining earlier. Our theory must, as I have said above, be applicable to both contingencies.
If the 率 of 利益／興味 were 無, there would be an optimum
interval for any given article between the 普通の／平均（する） date of input
and the date of 消費, for which 労働 cost would be a
最小限;ｾa shorter 過程 of
生産／産物 would be いっそう少なく efficient technically, whilst a longer
過程 would also be いっそう少なく efficient by 推論する／理由 of 貯蔵 costs
and 悪化／低下. If, however, the 率 of 利益／興味 越えるs
無, a new element of cost is introduced which 増加するs with
the length of the 過程, so that the optimum interval will be
縮めるd, and the 現在の input to 供給する for the 結局の
配達／演説／出産 of the article will have to be curtailed until the
見込みのある price has 増加するd 十分に to cover the
増加するd costｾa cost which will be
増加するd both by the 利益／興味 告発（する），告訴（する）／料金s and also by the 減らすd
efficiency of the shorter method of 生産／産物. Whilst if the
率 of 利益／興味 落ちるs below 無 (assuming this to be
technically possible), the opposite is the 事例／患者. Given the
見込みのある 消費者s' 需要・要求する, 現在の input to-day has to
compete, so to speak, with the 代案／選択肢 of starting input at a
later date; and, その結果, 現在の input will only be 価値（がある）
while when the greater cheapness, by 推論する／理由 of greater technical
efficiency or 見込みのある price changes, of producing later on
rather than now, is insufficient to 相殺する the smaller return
from 消極的な 利益／興味. In the 事例／患者 of the 広大な／多数の／重要な 大多数 of articles it
would 伴う／関わる 広大な／多数の／重要な technical inefficiency to start up
their input more than a very modest length of time ahead of their
見込みのある 消費. Thus even if the 率 of 利益／興味 is
無, there is a strict 限界 to the 割合 of 見込みのある
消費者s' 需要・要求する which it is profitable to begin 供給するing for
in 前進する; and, as the 率 of 利益／興味 rises, the 割合 of
the 見込みのある 消費者s' 需要・要求する for which it 支払う／賃金s to produce
to-day 縮むs pari passu.
III
We have seen that 資本／首都 has to be kept 不十分な enough in the long-period to have a ごくわずかの efficiency which is at least equal to the 率 of 利益／興味 for a period equal to the life of the 資本／首都, as 決定するd by psychological and institutional 条件s. What would this 伴う／関わる for a society which finds itself so 井戸／弁護士席 equipped with 資本／首都 that its ごくわずかの efficiency is 無 and would be 消極的な with any 付加 投資; yet 所有するing a 通貨の system, such that money will 'keep' and 伴う／関わるs ごくわずかの costs of 貯蔵 and 安全な 保護／拘留, with the result that in practice 利益／興味 cannot be 消極的な; and, in 条件s of 十分な 雇用, 性質の／したい気がして to save?
If, in such circumstances, we start from a position of 十分な 雇用, entrepreneurs will やむを得ず make losses if they continue to 申し込む／申し出 雇用 on a 規模 which will utilise the whole of the 存在するing 在庫／株 of 資本／首都. Hence the 在庫／株 of 資本／首都 and the level of 雇用 will have to 縮む until the community becomes so 貧窮化した that the aggregate of saving has become 無, the 肯定的な saving of some individuals or groups 存在 相殺する by the 消極的な saving of others. Thus for a society such as we have supposed, the position of equilibrium, under 条件s of laissez-faire, will be one in which 雇用 is low enough and the 基準 of life 十分に 哀れな to bring 貯金 to 無. More probably there will be a cyclical movement 一連の会議、交渉／完成する this equilibrium position. For if there is still room for 不確定 about the 未来, the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 will occasionally rise above 無 主要な to a 'にわか景気', and in the 後継するing '低迷' the 在庫／株 of 資本／首都 may 落ちる for a time below the level which will 産する／生じる a ごくわずかの efficiency of 無 in the long run. Assuming 訂正する foresight, the equilibrium 在庫／株 of 資本／首都 which will have a ごくわずかの efficiency of 正確に 無 will, of course, be a smaller 在庫／株 than would correspond to 十分な 雇用 of the 利用できる 労働; for it will be the 器具／備品 which corresponds to that 割合 of 失業 which 確実にするs 無 saving.
The only 代案／選択肢 position of equilibrium would be given by a 状況／情勢 in which a 在庫／株 of 資本／首都 十分に 広大な／多数の／重要な to have a ごくわずかの efficiency of 無 also 代表するs an 量 of wealth 十分に 広大な／多数の／重要な to satiate to the 十分な the aggregate 願望（する） on the part of the public to make 準備／条項 for the 未来, even with 十分な 雇用, in circumstances where no 特別手当 is obtainable in the form of 利益／興味. It would, however, be an ありそうもない coincidence that the propensity to save in 条件s of 十分な 雇用 should become 満足させるd just at the point where the 在庫／株 of 資本／首都 reaches the level where its ごくわずかの efficiency is 無. If, therefore, this more favourable 可能性 comes to the 救助（する）, it will probably 施行される, not just at the point where the 率 of 利益／興味 is 消えるing, but at some previous point during the 漸進的な 拒絶する／低下する of the 率 of 利益／興味.
We have assumed so far an institutional factor which 妨げるs the 率 of 利益／興味 from 存在 消極的な, in the 形態／調整 of money which has ごくわずかの carrying costs. In fact, however, institutional and psychological factors are 現在の which 始める，決める a 限界 much above 無 to the practicable 拒絶する／低下する in the 率 of 利益／興味. In particular the costs of bringing borrowers and 貸す人s together and 不確定 as to the 未来 of the 率 of 利益／興味, which we have 診察するd above, 始める，決める a lower 限界, which in 現在の circumstances may perhaps be as high as 2 or 2ｽ per cent on long 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語. If this should 証明する 訂正する, the ぎこちない 可能性s of an 増加するing 在庫／株 of wealth, in 条件s where the 率 of 利益／興味 can 落ちる no その上の under laissez-faire, may soon be realised in actual experience Moreover if the 最小限 level to which it is practicable to bring the 率 of 利益／興味 is appreciably above 無, there is いっそう少なく 見込み of the aggregate 願望（する） to 蓄積する wealth 存在 satiated before the 率 of 利益／興味 has reached its 最小限 level.
The 戦後の experiences of 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain and the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs are, indeed, actual examples of how an accumulation of wealth, so large that its ごくわずかの efficiency has fallen more 速く than the 率 of 利益／興味 can 落ちる in the 直面する of the 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing institutional and psychological factors, can 干渉する, in 条件s おもに of laissez-faire, with a reasonable level of 雇用 and with the 基準 of life which the technical 条件s of 生産／産物 are 有能な of furnishing.
It follows that of two equal communities, having the same technique but different 在庫／株s of 資本／首都, the community with the smaller 在庫／株s of 資本／首都 may be able for the time 存在 to enjoy a higher 基準 of life than the community with the larger 在庫／株; though when the poorer community has caught up the richｾas, 推定では, it 結局 willｾthen both alike will 苦しむ the 運命／宿命 of Midas. This 乱すing 結論 depends, of course, on the 仮定／引き受けること that the propensity to 消費する and the 率 of 投資 are not deliberately controlled in the social 利益／興味 but are おもに left to the 影響（力）s of laissez-faire.
Ifｾfor whatever 推論する／理由ｾthe 率 of 利益／興味 cannot 落ちる as 急速な／放蕩な
as the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 would 落ちる with a 率 of
accumulation corresponding to what the community would choose to save at a 率 of 利益／興味 equal
to the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 in 条件s of 十分な
雇用, then even a 転換 of the 願望（する） to 持つ／拘留する wealth
に向かって 資産s, which will in fact 産する／生じる no 経済的な fruits
whatever, will 増加する 経済的な 井戸／弁護士席-存在. In so far as
millionaires find their satisfaction in building mighty mansions
to 含む／封じ込める their 団体／死体s when alive and pyramids to 避難所 them
after death, or, repenting of their sins, 築く cathedrals and
endow 修道院s or foreign 使節団s, the day when 豊富 of
資本／首都 will 干渉する with 豊富 of 生産（高） may be 延期するd.
'To dig 穴を開けるs in the ground', paid for out of 貯金, will
増加する, not only 雇用, but the real 国家の （株主への）配当 of
useful goods and services. It is not reasonable, however, that a
sensible community should be content to remain 扶養家族 on such
fortuitous and often wasteful mitigations when once we understand
the 影響（力）s upon which 効果的な 需要・要求する depends.
IV
Let us assume that steps are taken to 確実にする that the 率 of 利益／興味 is 一貫した with the 率 of 投資 which corresponds to 十分な 雇用. Let us assume, その上の, that 明言する／公表する 活動／戦闘 enters in as a balancing factor to 供給する that the growth of 資本／首都 器具／備品 shall be such as to approach saturation-point at a 率 which does not put a disproportionate 重荷（を負わせる） on the 基準 of life of the 現在の 世代.
On such 仮定／引き受けることs I should guess that a 適切に run community equipped with modern technical 資源s, of which the 全住民 is not 増加するing rapidJy, せねばならない be able to bring 負かす／撃墜する the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 in equilibrium だいたい to 無 within a 選び出す／独身 世代; so that we should 達成する the 条件s of a quasi-静止している community where change and 進歩 would result only from changes in technique, taste, 全住民 and 会・原則s, with the 製品s of 資本／首都 selling at a price 割合d to the 労働, etc., 具体的に表現するd in them on just the same 原則s as 治める／統治する the prices of 消費-goods into which 資本／首都-告発（する），告訴（する）／料金s enter in an insignificant degree.
If I am 権利 in supposing it to be comparatively 平易な to make 資本／首都-goods so abundant that the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 is 無, this may be the most sensible way of 徐々に getting rid of many of the objectionable features of capitalism. For a little reflection will show what enormous social changes would result from a 漸進的な 見えなくなる of a 率 of return on 蓄積するd wealth. A man would still be 解放する／自由な to 蓄積する his earned income with a 見解（をとる） to spending it at a later date. But his accumulation would not grow. He would 簡単に be in the position of ローマ法王's father, who, when he retired from 商売／仕事, carried a chest of guineas with him to his 郊外住宅 at Twickenham and met his 世帯 expenses from it as 要求するd.
Though the rentier would disappear, there would still be room,
にもかかわらず, for 企業 and 技術 in the estimation of
見込みのある 産する／生じるs about which opinions could 異なる. For the
above relates まず第一に／本来 to the pure 率 of 利益／興味 apart from
any allowance for 危険 and the like, and not to the 甚だしい／１２ダース 産する／生じる
of 資産s 含むing the return in 尊敬（する）・点 of 危険. Thus unless
the pure 率 of 利益／興味 were to be held at a 消極的な 人物／姿／数字,
there would still be a 肯定的な 産する／生じる to 技術d 投資 in
individual 資産s having a doubtful 見込みのある 産する／生じる. 供給するd
there was some measurable 不本意 to 請け負う 危険, there
would also be a 肯定的な 逮捕する 産する／生じる from the aggregate of such
資産s over a period of time. But it is not ありそうもない that, in
such circumstances, the 切望 to 得る a 産する／生じる from doubtful
投資s might be such that they would show in the aggregate a
消極的な 逮捕する 産する／生じる.
一時期／支部 17
I
It seems, then, that the 率 of 利益／興味 on money plays a peculiar part in setting a 限界 to the level of 雇用, since it 始める，決めるs a 基準 to which the ごくわずかの efficiency of a 資本／首都-資産 must 達成する if it is to be newly produced. That this should be so, is, at first sight, most perplexing. It is natural to enquire wherein the peculiarity of money lies as 際立った from other 資産s, whether it is only money which has a 率 of 利益／興味, and what would happen in a 非，不，無-通貨の economy. Until we have answered these questions, the 十分な significance of our theory will not be （疑いを）晴らす.
The money-率 of 利益／興味ｾwe may remind the readerｾis nothing more than the 百分率 超過 of a sum of money 契約d for 今後 配達／演説／出産, e.g. a year hence, over what we may call the '位置／汚点／見つけ出す' or cash price of the sum thus 契約d for 今後 配達／演説／出産. It would seem, therefore, that for every 肉親，親類d of 資本／首都-資産 there must be an analogue of the 率 of 利益／興味 on money. For there is a 限定された 量 of (e.g.) wheat to be 配達するd a year hence which has the same 交流 value to-day as 100 ４半期/4分の1s of wheat for '位置／汚点／見つけ出す' 配達／演説／出産. If the former 量 is 105 ４半期/4分の1s, we may say that the wheat-率 of 利益／興味 is 5 per cent per 年; and if jt is 95 ４半期/4分の1s, that it is minus 5 per cent per 年. Thus for every 持続する 商品／必需品 we have a 率 of 利益／興味 ーに関して／ーの点でs of itself;ｾa wheat-率 of 利益／興味, a 巡査-率 of 利益／興味, a house-率 of 利益／興味, even a steel-工場／植物-率 of 利益／興味.
The difference between the '未来' and '位置／汚点／見つけ出す' 契約s for a 商品／必需品, such as wheat, which are 引用するd in the market, 耐えるs a 限定された relation to the wheat-率 of 利益／興味, but, since the 未来 契約 is 引用するd ーに関して／ーの点でs of money for 今後 配達／演説／出産 and not ーに関して／ーの点でs of wheat for 位置／汚点／見つけ出す 配達／演説／出産, it also brings in the money-率 of 利益／興味. The exact 関係 is as follows:
Let us suppose that the 位置／汚点／見つけ出す price of wheat is ｣100 per 100 ４半期/4分の1s, that the price of the '未来' 契約 for wheat for 配達／演説／出産 a year hence is ｣107 per 100 ４半期/4分の1s, and that the money-率 of 利益／興味 is 5 per cent; what is the wheat-率 of 利益／興味? ｣100 位置／汚点／見つけ出す will buy ｣105 for 今後 配達／演説／出産, and ｣105 for 今後 配達／演説／出産 will buy 105/107 ﾗ 100 ( = 98) ４半期/4分の1s for 今後 配達／演説／出産. Alternatively ｣100 位置／汚点／見つけ出す will buy 100 ４半期/4分の1s of wheat for 位置／汚点／見つけ出す 配達／演説／出産. Thus 100 ４半期/4分の1s of wheat for 位置／汚点／見つけ出す 配達／演説／出産 will buy 98 ４半期/4分の1s for 今後 配達／演説／出産. It follows that the wheat-率 of 利益／興味 is minus 2 per cent per 年.
It follows from this that there is no 推論する／理由 why their 率s of 利益／興味 should be the same for different 商品／必需品s,ｾwhy the wheat-率 of 利益／興味 should be equal to the 巡査-率 of 利益／興味. For the relation between the '位置／汚点／見つけ出す' and '未来' 契約s, as 引用するd in the market, is 悪名高くも different for different 商品／必需品s. This, we shall find, will lead us to the 手がかり（を与える） we are 捜し出すing. For it may be that it is the greatest of the own-率s of 利益／興味 (as we may call them) which 支配するs the roost (because it is the greatest of these 率s that the ごくわずかの efficiency of a 資本／首都-資産 must 達成する if it is to be newly produced); and that there are 推論する／理由s why it is the money-率 of 利益／興味 which is often the greatest (because, as we shall find, 確かな 軍隊s, which operate to 減ずる the own-率s of 利益／興味 of other 資産s, do not operate in the 事例／患者 of money).
It may be 追加するd that, just as there are 異なるing 商品／必需品-率s of 利益／興味 at any time, so also 交流 売買業者s are familiar with the fact that the 率 of 利益／興味 is not even the same ーに関して／ーの点でs of two different moneys, e.g. 英貨の／純銀の and dollars. For here also the difference between the '位置／汚点／見つけ出す' and '未来' 契約s for a foreign money ーに関して／ーの点でs of 英貨の／純銀の are not, as a 支配する, the same for different foreign moneys.
Now each of these 商品／必需品 基準s 申し込む／申し出s us the same
施設 as money for 手段ing the ごくわずかの efficiency of
資本／首都. For we can take any 商品／必需品 we choose, e.g. wheat;
calculate the wheat-value of the 見込みのある 産する／生じるs of any
資本／首都 資産; and the 率 of 割引 which makes the 現在の
value of this 一連の wheat annuities equal to the 現在の
供給（する） price of the 資産 ーに関して／ーの点でs of wheat gives us the ごくわずかの
efficiency of the 資産 ーに関して／ーの点でs of wheat. If no change is
推定する／予想するd in the 親族 value of two 代案／選択肢 基準s, then
the ごくわずかの efficiency of a 資本／首都-資産 will be the same in
whichever of the two 基準s it is 手段d, since the
numerator and denominator of the fraction which leads up to the
ごくわずかの efficiency will be changed in the same 割合. If,
however, one of the 代案／選択肢 基準s is 推定する／予想するd to change
in value ーに関して／ーの点でs of the other, the ごくわずかの efficiencies of
資本／首都-資産s will be changed by the same 百分率, （許可，名誉などを）与えるing
to which 基準 they are 手段d in. To illustrate this let us
take the simplest 事例／患者 where wheat, one of the 代案／選択肢
基準s, is 推定する／予想するd to 高く評価する／（相場などが）上がる at a 安定した 率 of a per
cent per 年 ーに関して／ーの点でs of money; the ごくわずかの efficiency of an
資産, which is x per cent ーに関して／ーの点でs of money, will then be
x - a per cent
ーに関して／ーの点でs of wheat. Since the ごくわずかの efficiencies of all
資本／首都-資産s will be altered by the same 量, it follows
that their order of magnitude will be the same irrespective of
the 基準 which is selected.
If there were some 合成物 商品／必需品 which could be regarded 厳密に speaking as 代表者／国会議員, we could regard the 率 of 利益／興味 and the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 ーに関して／ーの点でs of this 商品／必需品 as 存在, in a sense, uniquely the 率 of 利益／興味 and the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都. But there are, of course, the same 障害s in the way of this as there are to setting up a unique 基準 of value.
So far, therefore, the money-率 of 利益／興味 has no
uniqueness compared with other 率s of 利益／興味, but is on
正確に the same 地盤. Wherein, then, lies the peculiarity
of the money-率 of 利益／興味 which gives it the predominating
practical importance せいにするd to it in the 先行する 一時期／支部s?
Why should the 容積／容量 of 生産（高） and 雇用 be more intimately
bound up with the money-率 of 利益／興味 than with the wheat-率
of 利益／興味 or the house-率 of 利益／興味?
II
Let us consider what the さまざまな 商品／必需品-率s of 利益／興味 over a period of (say) a year are likely to be for different types of 資産s. Since we are taking each 商品／必需品 in turn as the 基準, the returns on each 商品／必需品 must be reckoned in this 状況 as 存在 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of itself.
There are three せいにするs which different types of 資産s 所有する in different degrees; すなわち, as follows:
(i) Some 資産s produce a 産する／生じる or 生産（高） q, 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of themselves, by 補助装置ing some 過程 of 生産／産物 or 供給（する）ing services to a 消費者.
(ii) Most 資産s, except money, 苦しむ some wastage or 伴う／関わる some cost through the mere passage of time (apart from any change in their 親族 value), irrespective of their 存在 used to produce a 産する／生じる; i.e. they 伴う／関わる a carrying cost c 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of themselves. It does not 事柄 for our 現在の 目的 正確に／まさに where we draw the line between the costs which we deduct before calculating q and those which we 含む in c, since in what follows we shall be 排他的に 関心d with q - c.
(iii) Finally, the 力／強力にする of 処分 over an 資産 during a period may 申し込む／申し出 a 可能性のある convenience or 安全, which is not equal for 資産s of different 肉親，親類d, though the 資産s themselves are of equal 初期の value. There is, so to speak, nothing to show for this at the end of the period in the 形態／調整 of 生産（高）; yet it is something for which people are ready to 支払う／賃金 something. The 量 (手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of itself) which they are willing to 支払う／賃金 for the 可能性のある convenience or 安全 given by this 力／強力にする of 処分 (排除的 of 産する／生じる or carrying cost 大（公）使館員ing to the 資産), we shall call its liquidity-賞与金 l.
It follows that the total return 推定する／予想するd from the 所有権 of an 資産 over a period is equal to its 産する／生じる minus its carrying cost 加える its liquidity-賞与金, i.e. to q - c + l. That is to say, q - c + l is the own-率 of 利益／興味 of any 商品／必需品, where q, c and l are 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of itself as the 基準.
It is characteristic of instrumental 資本／首都 (e.g. a machine) or of 消費 資本／首都 (e.g. a house) which is in use, that its 産する／生じる should 普通は 越える its carrying cost, whilst its liquidity-賞与金 is probably ごくわずかの; of a 在庫／株 of liquid goods or of 黒字／過剰 laid-up instrumental or 消費 資本／首都 that it should 背負い込む a carrying cost ーに関して／ーの点でs of itself without any 産する／生じる to 始める，決める off against it, the liquidity-賞与金 in this 事例／患者 also 存在 usually ごくわずかの as soon as 在庫／株s 越える a 穏健な level, though 有能な of 存在 sigmficant in special circumstances; and of money that its 産する／生じる is nil and its carrying cost ごくわずかの, but its liquidity-賞与金 相当な. Different 商品／必需品s may, indeed, have 異なるing degrees of liquidity-賞与金 amongst themselves, and money may 背負い込む some degree of carrying costs, e.g. for 安全な 保護／拘留. But it is an 必須の difference between money and all (or most) other 資産s that in the 事例／患者 of money its liquidity-賞与金 much 越えるs its carrying cost, 反して in the 事例／患者 of other 資産s their carrying cost much 越えるs their liquidity-賞与金. Let us, for 目的s of illustration, assume that on houses the 産する／生じる is q1 and the carrying cost and liquidity-賞与金 ごくわずかの; that on wheat the carrying cost is c2 and the 産する／生じる and liquidity-賞与金 ごくわずかの; and that on money the liquidity-賞与金 is l3 and the 産する／生じる and carrying cost ごくわずかの. That is to say, q1 is the house-率 of 利益／興味, - c2 the wheat-率 of 利益／興味, and l3 the money-率 of 利益／興味.
To 決定する the 関係s between the 推定する／予想するd returns on different types of 資産s which are 一貫した with equilibrium, we must also know what the changes in 親族 values during the year are 推定する／予想するd to be. Taking money (which need only be a money of account for this 目的, and we could 平等に 井戸／弁護士席 take wheat) as our 基準 of 測定, let the 推定する／予想するd 百分率 評価 (or 価値低下) of houses be a1 and of wheat a2. q1, - c2 and l3 we have called the own-率s of 利益／興味 of houses, wheat and money ーに関して／ーの点でs of themselves as the 基準 of value; i.e. q1 is the house-率 of 利益／興味 ーに関して／ーの点でs of houses, - c2 is the wheat-率 of 利益／興味 ーに関して／ーの点でs of wheat, and l3 is the money-率 of 利益／興味 ーに関して／ーの点でs of money. It will also be useful to call a1 + q1, a2 - c2 and l3, which stand for the same 量s 減ずるd to money as the 基準 of value, the house-率 of money-利益／興味, the wheat-率 of money-利益／興味 and the money-率 of money-利益／興味 それぞれ. With this notation it is 平易な to see that the 需要・要求する of wealth-owners will be directed to houses, to wheat or to money, （許可，名誉などを）与えるing as a1 + q1 or a2 - c2 or l3 is greatest. Thus in equilibrium the 需要・要求する-prices of houses and wheat ーに関して／ーの点でs of money will be such that there is nothing to choose in the way of advantage between the 代案／選択肢s;ｾi.e. a1 + q1, a2 - c2 and l3 will be equal. The choice of the 基準 of value will make no difference to this result because a 転換 from one 基準 to another will change all the 条件 平等に, i.e. by an 量 equal to the 推定する／予想するd 率 of 評価 (or 価値低下) of the new 基準 ーに関して／ーの点でs of the old.
Now those 資産s of which the normal 供給（する）-price is いっそう少なく than the 需要・要求する-price will be newly produced; and these will be those 資産s of which the ごくわずかの efficiency would be greater (on the basis of their normal 供給（する）-price) than the 率 of 利益／興味 (both 存在 手段d in the same 基準 of value whatever it is). As the 在庫／株 of the 資産s, which begin by having a ごくわずかの efficiency at least equal to the 率 of 利益／興味, is 増加するd, their ごくわずかの efficiency (for 推論する／理由s, 十分に obvious, already given) tends to 落ちる. Thus a point will come at which it no longer 支払う／賃金s to produce them, unless the 率 of 利益／興味 落ちるs pari passu. When there is no 資産 of which the ごくわずかの efficiency reaches the 率 of 利益／興味, the その上の 生産／産物 of 資本／首都-資産s will come to a 行き詰まり.
Let us suppose (as a mere hypothesis at this 行う／開催する／段階 of the
argument) that there is some 資産 (e.g. money) of which the 率
of 利益／興味 is 直す／買収する，八百長をするd (or 拒絶する／低下するs more slowly as 生産（高） 増加するs
than does any other 商品／必需品's 率 of 利益／興味); how is the
position adjusted? Since a1 + q1,
a2 - c2
and l3 are やむを得ず equal, and since l3
by hypothesis is either 直す／買収する，八百長をするd or 落ちるing more slowly than q1
or - c2, it
follows that a1 and a2 must
be rising. In other words, the 現在の money-price of every
商品／必需品 other than money tends to 落ちる 比較して to its
推定する／予想するd 未来 price. Hence, if q1 and - c2 continue to
落ちる, a point comes at which it is not profitable to produce any
of the 商品／必需品s, unless the cost of 生産／産物 at some 未来
date is 推定する／予想するd to rise above the 現在の cost by an 量
which will cover the cost of carrying a 在庫／株 produced now to the
date of the 見込みのある higher price.
It is now 明らかな that our previous 声明 to the 影響 that it is the money-率 of 利益／興味 which 始める，決めるs a 限界 to the 率 of 生産（高）, is not 厳密に 訂正する. We should have said that it is that 資産's 率 of 利益／興味 which 拒絶する／低下するs most slowly as the 在庫／株 of 資産s in general 増加するs, which 結局 knocks out the profitable 生産／産物 of each of the others,ｾexcept in the contingency, just について言及するd, of a special 関係 between the 現在の and 見込みのある costs of 生産／産物. As 生産（高） 増加するs, own-率s of 利益／興味 拒絶する／低下する to levels at which one 資産 after another 落ちるs below the 基準 of profitable 生産／産物;ｾuntil, finally, one or more own-率s of 利益／興味 remain at a level which is above that of the ごくわずかの efficiency of any 資産 whatever.
If by money we mean the 基準 of value, it is （疑いを）晴らす
that it is not やむを得ず the money-率 of 利益／興味 which makes
the trouble. We could not get out of our difficulties (as some
have supposed) 単に by 法令ing that wheat or houses shall be
the 基準 of value instead of gold or 英貨の／純銀の. For, it now
appears that the same difficulties will 続いて起こる if there continues
to 存在する any 資産 of which the own-率 of 利益／興味 is
気が進まない to 拒絶する／低下する as 生産（高） 増加するs. It may be, for example,
that gold will continue to fill this r6le in a country which has
gone over to an inconvertible paper 基準.
III
In せいにするing, therefore, a peculiar significance to the money-率 of 利益／興味, we have been tacitly assuming that the 肉親，親類d of money to which we are accustomed has some special 特徴 which lead to its own-率 of 利益／興味 ーに関して／ーの点でs of itself as 基準 存在 more 気が進まない to 落ちる as the 在庫／株 of 資産s in general 増加するs than the own-率s of 利益／興味 of any other 資産s ーに関して／ーの点でs of themselves. Is this 仮定／引き受けること 正当化するd? Reflection shows, I think, that the に引き続いて peculiarities, which 一般的に characterise money as we know it, are 有能な of 正当化するing it. To the extent that the 設立するd 基準 of value has these peculiarities, the 要約 声明, that it is the money-率 of 利益／興味 which is the 重要な 率 of 利益／興味, will 持つ／拘留する good.
(i) The first characteristic which tends に向かって the above 結論 is the fact that money has, both in the long and in the short period, a 無, or at any 率 a very small, elasticity of 生産／産物, so far as the 力／強力にする of 私的な 企業 is 関心d, as 際立った from the 通貨の 当局;ｾelasticity of 生産／産物 meaning, in this 状況, the 返答 of the 量 of 労働 適用するd to producing it to a rise in the 量 of 労働 which a 部隊 of it will 命令（する）. Money, that is to say, cannot be readily produced;ｾ労働 cannot be turned on at will by entrepreneurs to produce money in 増加するing 量s as its price rises ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 行う-部隊. In the 事例／患者 of an inconvertible managed 通貨 this 条件 is 厳密に 満足させるd. But in the 事例／患者 of a gold-基準 通貨 it is also だいたい so, in the sense that the 最大限 比例する 新規加入 to the 量 of 労働 which can be thus 雇うd is very small, except indeed in a country of which gold-採掘 is the major 産業.
Now, in the 事例／患者 of 資産s having an elasticity of 生産／産物, the 推論する／理由 why we assumed their own-率 of 利益／興味 to 拒絶する／低下する was because we assumed the 在庫／株 of them to 増加する as the result of a higher 率 of 生産（高）. In the 事例／患者 of money, howeverｾ延期するing, for the moment, our consideration of the 影響s of 減ずるing the 行う-部隊 or of a 審議する／熟考する 増加する in its 供給（する） by the 通貨の 当局ｾthe 供給（する） is 直す／買収する，八百長をするd. Thus the characteristic that money cannot be readily produced by 労働 gives at once some prima facie presumption for the 見解（をとる） that its own-率 of 利益／興味 will be 比較して 気が進まない to 落ちる; 反して if money could be grown like a 刈る or 製造（する）d like a モーター-car, 不景気s would be 避けるd or mitigated because, if the price of other 資産s was tending to 落ちる in 条件 of money, more 労働 would be コースを変えるd into the 生産／産物 of money;ｾas we see to be the 事例／患者 in gold-採掘 countries, though for the world as a whole the 最大限 転換 in this way is almost ごくわずかの.
(ii) 明白に, however, the above 条件 is 満足させるd, not only by money, but by all pure rent-factors, the 生産／産物 of which is 完全に inelastic. A second 条件, therefore, is 要求するd to distinguish money from other rent elements.
The second differentia of money is that it has an elasticity of substitution equal, or nearly equal, to 無 which means that as the 交流 value of money rises there is no 傾向 to 代用品，人 some other factor for it;ｾexcept, perhaps, to some trifling extent, where the money-商品／必需品 is also used in 製造（する） or the arts. This follows from the peculiarity of money that irs 公共事業（料金）／有用性 is 単独で derived from its 交流-value, so that the two rise and 落ちる pari passu, with the result that as the 交流 value of money rises there is no 動機 or 傾向, as in the 事例／患者 of rent-factors, to 代用品，人 some other factor for it.
Thus, not only is it impossible to turn more 労働 on to producing money when its 労働-price rises, but money is a bottomless 沈む for 購入（する）ing 力／強力にする, when the 需要・要求する for it 増加するs, since there is no value for it at which 需要・要求する is コースを変えるdｾas in the 事例／患者 of other rent-factorsｾso as to slop over into a 需要・要求する for other things.
The only 資格 to this arises when the rise in the value of money leads to 不確定 as to the 未来 維持／整備 of this rise; in which event, a1 and a2 are 増加するd, which is tantamount to an 増加する in the 商品／必需品-率s of money-利益／興味 and is, therefore, 刺激するing to the 生産（高） of other 資産s.
(iii) Thirdly, we must consider whether these 結論s are upset by the fact that, even though the 量 of money cannot be 増加するd by コースを変えるing 労働 into pro4ucing it, にもかかわらず an 仮定／引き受けること that its 効果的な 供給（する） is rigidly 直す／買収する，八百長をするd would be 不確かの. In particular, a 削減 of the 行う-部隊 will 解放（する） cash from its other uses for the satisfaction of the liquidity-動機; whilst, in 新規加入 to this, as money-values 落ちる, the 在庫／株 of money will 耐える a higher 割合 to the total wealth of the community.
It is not possible to 論争 on 純粋に theoretical grounds that this reaction might be 有能な of 許すing an 適する 拒絶する／低下する in the money-率 of 利益／興味. There are, however, several 推論する／理由s, which taken in combination are of 説得力のある 軍隊, why in an economy of the type to which we are accustomed it is very probable that the money-率 of 利益／興味 will often 証明する 気が進まない to 拒絶する／低下する adequately:
(a) We have to 許す, first of all, for the reactions of a 落ちる in the 行う-部隊 on the ごくわずかの efficiencies of other 資産s ーに関して／ーの点でs of money;ｾfor it is the difference between these and the money-率 of 利益／興味 with which we are 関心d. If the 影響 of the 落ちる in the 行う-部隊 is to produce an 期待 that it will subsequently rise again, the result will be wholly favourable. If, on the contrary, the 影響 is to produce an 期待 of a その上の 落ちる, the reaction on the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 may 相殺する the 拒絶する／低下する in the 率 of 利益／興味.
(b) The fact that 給料 tend to be sticky ーに関して／ーの点でs of money, the money-行う 存在 more stable than the real 行う, tends to 限界 the 準備完了 of the 行う-部隊 to 落ちる in 条件 of money. Moreover, if this were not so, the position might be worse rather than better; because, if money-給料 were to 落ちる easily, this might often tend to create an 期待 of a その上の 落ちる with unfavourable reactions on the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都.
その上に, if 給料 were to be 直す／買収する，八百長をするd ーに関して／ーの点でs of some other 商品／必需品, e.g. wheat, it is improbable that they would continue to be sticky. It is because of money's other 特徴ｾthose, 特に, which make it liquidｾthat 給料, when 直す／買収する，八百長をするd ーに関して／ーの点でs of it, tend to be sticky.
(c) Thirdly, we come to what is the most 根底となる consideration in this 状況, すなわち, the 特徴 of money which 満足させる liquidity-preference. For, in 確かな circumstances such as will often occur, these will 原因（となる） the 率 of 利益／興味 to be insensitive, 特に below a 確かな 人物／姿／数字, even to a 相当な 増加する in the 量 of money in 割合 to other forms of wealth. In other words, beyond a 確かな point money's 産する／生じる from liquidity does not 落ちる in 返答 to an 増加する in its 量 to anything approaching the extent to which the 産する／生じる from other types of 資産s 落ちるs when their 量 is comparably 増加するd.
In this 関係 the low (or ごくわずかの) carrying-costs of
money play an 必須の part. For if its carrying costs were
構成要素, they would 相殺する the 影響 of 期待s as to the
見込みのある value of money at 未来 dates. The 準備完了 of the
public to 増加する their 在庫／株 of money in 返答 to a
comparatively small 刺激 is 予定 to the advantages of
liquidity (real or supposed) having no 相殺する to 競う with in
the 形態／調整 of carrying-costs 開始するing steeply with the lapse of
time. In the 事例／患者 of a 商品／必需品 other than money a modest 在庫／株
of it may 申し込む／申し出 some convenience to 使用者s of the 商品／必需品. But
even though a larger 在庫／株 might have some attractions as
代表するing a 蓄える／店 of wealth of stable value, this would be
相殺する by its carrying-costs in the 形態／調整 of 貯蔵, wastage,
etc.
Hence, after a 確かな point is reached, there is やむを得ず a loss in 持つ／拘留するing a greater 在庫／株.
In the 事例／患者 of money, however, this, as we have seen, is not so,ｾand for a variety of 推論する／理由s, すなわち, those which 構成する money as 存在, in the estimation of the public, par excellence 'liquid'. Thus those 改革者s, who look for a 治療（薬） by creating 人工的な carrying-costs for money through the 装置 of 要求するing 合法的な-tender 通貨 to be periodically stamped at a 定める／命ずるd cost ーするために 保持する its 質 as money, or in analogous ways, have been on the 権利 跡をつける; and the practical value of their 提案s deserves consideration.
The significance of the money-率 of 利益／興味 arises, therefore, out of the combination of the 特徴 that, through the working of the liquidity-動機, this 率 of 利益／興味 may be somewhat unresponsive to a change in the 割合 which the 量 of money 耐えるs to other forms of wealth 手段d in money, and that money has (or may have) 無 (or ごくわずかの) elasticities both of 生産／産物 and of substitution. The first 条件 means that 需要・要求する may be predominantly directed to money, the second that when this occurs 労働 cannot be 雇うd in producing more money, and the third that there is no mitigation at any point through some other factor 存在 有能な, if it is 十分に cheap, of doing money's 義務 平等に 井戸／弁護士席. The only 救済ｾapart from changes in the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都ｾcan come (so long as the propensity に向かって liquidity is 不変の) from an 増加する in the 量 of money, orｾwhich is 正式に the same thingｾa rise in the value of money which enables a given 量 to 供給する 増加するd money-services.
Thus a rise in the money-率 of 利益／興味 retards the 生産（高） of all the 反対するs of which the 生産／産物 is elastic without 存在 有能な of 刺激するing the 生産（高） of money (the 生産／産物 of which is, by hypothesis, perfectly inelastic). The money-率 of 利益／興味, by setting the pace for all the other 商品／必需品-率s of 利益／興味, 持つ／拘留するs 支援する 投資 in the 生産／産物 of these other 商品／必需品s without 存在 有能な of 刺激するing 投資 for the 生産／産物 of money, which by hypothesis cannot be produced. Moreover, 借りがあるing to the elasticity of 需要・要求する for liquid cash in 条件 of 負債s, a small change in the 条件s 治める／統治するing this 需要・要求する may not much alter the money-率 of 利益／興味, whilst (apart from 公式の／役人 活動／戦闘) it is also impracticable, 借りがあるing to the inelasticity of the 生産／産物 of money, for natural 軍隊s to bring the money-率 of 利益／興味 負かす／撃墜する by 影響する／感情ing the 供給（する） 味方する. In the 事例／患者 of an ordinary 商品／必需品, the inelasticity of the 需要・要求する for liquid 在庫／株s of it would enable small changes on the 需要・要求する 味方する to bring its 率 of 利益／興味 up or 負かす／撃墜する with a 急ぐ, whilst the elasticity of its 供給（する） would also tend to 妨げる a high 賞与金 on 位置／汚点／見つけ出す over 今後 配達／演説／出産. Thus with other 商品／必需品s left to themselves, 'natural 軍隊s,' i.e. the ordinary 軍隊s of the market, would tend to bring their 率 of 利益／興味 負かす／撃墜する until the 出現 of 十分な 雇用 had brought about for 商品／必需品s 一般に the inelasticity of 供給（する） which we have postulated as a normal characteristic of money. Thus in the absence of money and in the absenceｾwe must, of course, also supposeｾof any other 商品／必需品 with the assumed 特徴 of money, the 率s of 利益／興味 would only reach equilibrium when there is 十分な 雇用. 失業 develops, that is to say, because people want the moon;ｾmen cannot be 雇うd when the 反対する of 願望（する） (i.e. money) is something which cannot be produced and the 需要・要求する for which cannot be readily choked off. There is no 治療（薬） but to 説得する the public that green cheese is 事実上 the same thing and to have a green cheese factory (i.e. a central bank) under public 支配（する）／統制する.
It is 利益／興味ing to notice that the characteristic which has been 伝統的に supposed to （判決などを）下す gold
特に suitable for use as the 基準 of value, すなわち, its
inelasticity of 供給（する）, turns out to be 正確に the
characteristic which is at the 底（に届く） of the trouble.
Our 結論 can be 明言する／公表するd in the most general form (taking the propensity to 消費する as given) as follows. No その上の 増加する in the 率 of 投資 is possible when the greatest amongst the own-率s of own-利益／興味 of all 利用できる 資産s is equal to the greatest amongst the ごくわずかの efficiencies of all 資産s, 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 資産 whose own-率 of own-利益／興味 is greatest.
In a position of 十分な 雇用 this 条件 is やむを得ず
満足させるd. But it may also be 満足させるd before 十分な 雇用 is
reached, if there 存在するs some 資産, having 無 (or 比較して
small) elasticities of 生産／産物 and substitution,
whose 率 of 利益／興味 拒絶する／低下するs more closely, as 生産（高）
増加するs, than the ごくわずかの efficiencies of 資本／首都-資産s
手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of it.
IV
We have shown above that for a 商品／必需品 to be the 基準 of value is not a 十分な 条件 for that 商品／必需品's 率 of 利益／興味 to be the 重要な 率 of 利益／興味. It is, however, 利益／興味ing to consider how far those 特徴 of money as we know it, which make the money-率 of 利益／興味 the 重要な 率, are bound up with money 存在 the 基準 in which 負債s and 給料 are usually 直す／買収する，八百長をするd. The 事柄 要求するs consideration under two 面s.
In the first place, the fact that 契約s are 直す／買収する，八百長をするd, and 給料 are usually somewhat stable, ーに関して／ーの点でs of money unquestionably plays a large part in attracting to money so high a liquidity-賞与金. The convenience of 持つ／拘留するing 資産s in the same 基準 as that in which 未来 義務／負債s may 落ちる 予定 and in a 基準 ーに関して／ーの点でs of which the 未来 cost of living is 推定する／予想するd to be 比較して stable, is obvious. At the same time the 期待 of 親族 安定 in the 未来 money-cost of 生産（高） might not be entertained with much 信用／信任 if the 基準 of value were a 商品／必需品 with a high elasticity of 生産／産物. Moreover, the low carrying-costs of money as we know it play やめる as large a part as a high liquidity-賞与金 in making the money-率 of 利益／興味 the 重要な 率. For what 事柄s is the difference between the liquidity-賞与金 and the carrying-costs; and in the 事例／患者 of most 商品／必需品s, other than such 資産s as gold and silver and bank-公式文書，認めるs, the carrying-costs are at least as high as the liquidity-賞与金 ordinarily 大（公）使館員ing to the 基準 in which 契約s and 給料 are 直す／買収する，八百長をするd, so that, even if the liquidity-賞与金 now 大（公）使館員ing to (e.g.) 英貨の／純銀の-money were to be transferred to(e.g.) wheat, the wheat-率 of 利益／興味 would still be ありそうもない to rise above 無. It remains the 事例／患者, therefore, that, whilst the fact of 契約s and 給料 存在 直す／買収する，八百長をするd ーに関して／ーの点でs of money かなり 高めるs the significance of the money-率 of 利益／興味, this circumstance is, にもかかわらず, probably insufficient by itself to produce the 観察するd 特徴 of the money-率 of 利益／興味.
The second point to be considered is more subtle. The normal 期待 that the value of 生産（高） will be more stable ーに関して／ーの点でs of money than ーに関して／ーの点でs of any other 商品／必需品, depends of course, not on 給料 存在 arranged ーに関して／ーの点でs of money, but on 給料 存在 比較して sticky ーに関して／ーの点でs of money. What, then, would the position be if 給料 were 推定する／予想するd to be more sticky (i.e. more stable) ーに関して／ーの点でs of some one or more 商品／必需品s other than money, than ーに関して／ーの点でs of money itself? Such an 期待 要求するs, not only that the costs of the 商品／必需品 in question are 推定する／予想するd to be 比較して constant ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 行う-部隊 for a greater or smaller 規模 of 生産（高） both in the short and in the long period, but also that any 黒字／過剰 over the 現在の 需要・要求する at cost-price can be taken into 在庫／株 without cost, i.e. that its liquidity-賞与金 越えるs its carrying-costs (for, さもなければ, since there is no hope of 利益（をあげる） from a higher price, the carrying of a 在庫／株 must やむを得ず 伴う／関わる a loss). If a 商品／必需品 can be 設立する to 満足させる these 条件s, then, assuredly, it might be 始める，決める up as a 競争相手 to money. Thus it is not 論理（学）上 impossible that there should be a 商品／必需品 ーに関して／ーの点でs of which the value of 生産（高） is 推定する／予想するd to be more stable than in 条件 of money. But it does not seem probable that any such 商品／必需品 存在するs.
I 結論する, therefore, that the 商品／必需品, ーに関して／ーの点でs of which 給料 are 推定する／予想するd to be most sticky, cannot be one whose elasticity of 生産／産物 is not least, and for which the 超過 of carrying-costs over liquidity-賞与金 is not least. In other words, the 期待 of a 親族 stickiness of 給料 ーに関して／ーの点でs of money is a corollary of the 超過 of liquidity-賞与金 over carrying-costs 存在 greater for money than for any other 資産.
Thus we see that the さまざまな 特徴, which 連合させる to make the money-率 of 利益／興味 重要な, interact with one another in a cumulative fashion. The fact that money has low elasticities of 生産／産物 and substitution and low carrying-costs tends to raise the 期待 that money-給料 will be 比較して stable; and this 期待 高めるs money's liquidity-賞与金 and 妨げるs the exceptional correlation between the money-率 of 利益／興味 and the ごくわずかの efficiencies of other 資産s which might, if it could 存在する, 略奪する the money-率 of 利益／興味 of its sting.
Professor Pigou (with others) has been accustomed to assume
that there is a presumption in favour of real 給料 存在 more
stable than money-給料. But this could only be the 事例／患者 if there
were a presumption in favour of 安定 of 雇用. Moreover, there is also the
difficulty that 行う-goods have a high carrying-cost. If, indeed,
some 試みる／企てる were made to stabilise real 給料 by 直す／買収する，八百長をするing 給料 in
条件 of 行う-goods, the 影響 could only be to 原因（となる） a violent
oscillation of money-prices. For every small fluctuation in the
propensity to 消費する and the 誘導 to 投資する would 原因（となる）
money-prices to 急ぐ violently between 無 and infinity. That
money-給料 should be more stable than real 給料 is a 条件
of the system 所有するing inherent 安定. Thus the attribution
of 親族 安定 to real 給料 is not 単に a mistake in
fact and experience. It is also a mistake in logic, if we are
supposing that the system in 見解（をとる） is stable, in the sense that
small changes in the propensity to 消費する and the 誘導 to
投資する do not produce violent 影響s on prices.
V
As a footnote to the above, it may be 価値（がある） 強調ing what has been already 明言する／公表するd above, すなわち, that 'liquidity' and 'carrying-costs' are both a 事柄 of degree; and that it is only in having the former high 比較して to the latter that the peculiarity of 'money' consists.
Consider, for example, an economy in which there is no 資産
for which the liquidity-賞与金 is always in 超過 of the
carrying-costs; which is the best 鮮明度／定義 I can give of a
いわゆる '非，不，無-通貨の' economy. There 存在するs nothing, that is
to say, but particular consumables and particular 資本／首都
器具／備品s more or いっそう少なく differentiated によれば the character
of the consumables which they can 産する／生じる up, or 補助装置 to 産する／生じる
up, over a greater or a shorter period of time; all of which,
unlike cash, 悪化する or 伴う／関わる expense, if they are kept in
在庫／株, to a value in 超過 of any liquidity-賞与金 which may
attach to them.
In such an economy 資本／首都 器具／備品s will 異なる from one another (a) in the variety of the consumables in the 生産／産物 of which they are 有能な of 補助装置ing, (b) in the 安定 of value of their 生産（高） (in the sense in which the value of bread is more stable through time than the value of 流行の／上流の novelties), and (c) in the rapidity with which the wealth 具体的に表現するd in them can become 'liquid', in the sense of producing 生産（高）, the proceeds of which can be re-具体的に表現するd if 願望（する）d in やめる a different form.
The owners of wealth will then 重さを計る the 欠如（する） of 'liquidity' of different 資本／首都 器具／備品s in the above sense as a medium in which to 持つ／拘留する wealth against the best 利用できる actuarial 見積（る） of their 見込みのある 産する／生じるs after 許すing for 危険. The liquidity-賞与金, it will be 観察するd, is partly 類似の to the 危険-賞与金, but partly different;ｾthe difference corresponding to the difference between the best 見積（る）s we can make of probabilities and the 信用／信任 with which we make them. When we were 取引，協定ing, in earlier 一時期／支部s, with the estimation of 見込みのある 産する／生じる, we did not enter into 詳細（に述べる） as to how the estimation is made: and to 避ける 複雑にするing the argument, we did not distinguish differences in liquidity from differences in 危険 proper. It is evident, however, that in calculating the own-率 of 利益／興味 we must 許す for both.
There is, 明確に, no 絶対の 基準 of 'liquidity' but 単に a 規模 of liquidityｾa 変化させるing 賞与金 of which account has to be taken, in 新規加入 to the 産する／生じる of use and the carrying-costs, in 見積（る）ing the comparative attractions of 持つ／拘留するing different forms of wealth. The conception of what 与える／捧げるs to 'liquidity' is a partly vague one, changing from time to time and depending on social practices and 会・原則s. The order of preference in the minds of owners of wealth in which at any given time they 表明する their feelings about liquidity is, however, 限定された and is all we 要求する for our 分析 of the behaviour of the 経済的な system.
It may be that in 確かな historic 環境s the 所有／入手
of land has been characterised by a high liquidity-賞与金 in the
minds of owners of wealth; and since land 似ているs money in that
its elasticities of 生産／産物 and substitution may be very
low,
it is 考えられる that there have been occasions in history in
which the 願望（する） to 持つ／拘留する land has played the same r?e in
keeping up the 率 of 利益／興味 at too high a level which money
has played in 最近の times. It is difficult to trace this
影響（力） quantitatively 借りがあるing to the absence of a 今後 price
for land ーに関して／ーの点でs of itself which is 厳密に 類似の with the
率 of 利益／興味 on a money 負債. We have, however, something
which has, at times, been closely analogous, in the 形態／調整 of high
率s of 利益／興味 on mortgages.
The high 率s of 利益／興味 from mortgages on land, often
越えるing the probable 逮捕する 産する／生じる from cultivating the land, have
been a familiar feature of many 農業の economies. Usury
法律s have been directed まず第一に／本来 against encumbrances of this
character. And rightly so. For in earlier social organisation
where long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 社債s in the modern sense were 非，不，無-existent, the
競争 of a high 利益／興味-率 on mortgages may 井戸／弁護士席 have
had the same 影響 in retarding the growth of wealth from
現在の 投資 in newly produced 資本／首都-資産s, as high
利益／興味 率s on long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 負債s have had in more 最近の times.
That the world after several millennia of 安定した individual saving, is so poor as it is in 蓄積するd 資本／首都-資産s, is to be explained, in my opinion, neither by the improvident propensities of mankind, nor even by the 破壊 of war, but by the high liquidity-賞与金s 以前は 大（公）使館員ing to the 所有権 of land and now 大（公）使館員ing to money. I 異なる in this from the older 見解（をとる） as 表明するd by Marshall with an unusual dogmatic 軍隊 in his 原則s of 経済的なs, p. 581:
Everyone is aware that the accumulation of wealth is held in check, and the 率 of 利益／興味 so far 支えるd, by the preference which the 広大な／多数の／重要な 集まり of humanity have for 現在の over deferred gratifications, or, in other words, by their 不本意 to 'wait'.
VI
In my Treatise on Money I defined what 趣旨d to be a unique 率 of 利益／興味, which I called the natural 率 of 利益／興味ｾすなわち, the 率 of 利益／興味 which, in the terminology of my Treatise, 保存するd equality between the 率 of saving (as there defined) and the 率 of 投資. I believed this to be a 開発 and 解明 of Wicksell's 'natural 率 of 利益／興味', which was, によれば him, the 率 which would 保存する the 安定 of some, not やめる 明確に 明示するd, price-level.
I had, however, overlooked the fact that in any given society there is, on this 鮮明度／定義, a different natural 率 of 利益／興味 for each hypothetical level of 雇用. And, 類似して, for every 率 of 利益／興味 there is a level of 雇用 for which that 率 is the 'natural' 率, in the sense that the system will be in equilibrium with that 率 of 利益／興味 and that level of 雇用. Thus it was a mistake to speak of the natural 率 of 利益／興味 or to 示唆する that the above 鮮明度／定義 would 産する／生じる a unique value for the 率 of 利益／興味 irrespective of the level of 雇用. I had not then understood that, in 確かな 条件s, the system could be in equilibrium with いっそう少なく than 十分な 雇用.
I am now no longer of the opinion that the 概念 of a 'natural' 率 of 利益／興味, which 以前 seemed to me a most 約束ing idea, has anything very useful or 重要な to 与える／捧げる to our 分析. It is 単に the 率 of 利益／興味 which will 保存する the status quo; and, in general, we have no predominant 利益／興味 in the status quo as such.
If there is any such 率 of 利益／興味, which is unique and 重要な, it must be the 率 which we might 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 the 中立の 率 of 利益／興味, すなわち, the natural 率 in the above sense which is 一貫した with 十分な 雇用, given the other parameters of the system; though this 率 might be better 述べるd, perhaps, as the optimum 率.
The 中立の 率 of 利益／興味 can be more 厳密に defined as the 率 of 利益／興味 which 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるs in equilibrium when 生産（高） and 雇用 are such that the elasticity of 雇用 as a whole is 無.
The above gives us, once again, the answer to the question as
to what tacit 仮定／引き受けること is 要求するd to make sense of the
classical theory of the 率 of 利益／興味. This theory assumes
either that the actual 率 of 利益／興味 is always equal to the
中立の 率 of 利益／興味 in the sense in which we have just
defined the latter, or alternatively that the actual 率 of
利益／興味 is always equal to the 率 of 利益／興味 which will
持続する 雇用 at some 明示するd constant level. If the
伝統的な theory is thus 解釈する／通訳するd, there is little or
nothing in its practical 結論s to which we need take
exception. The classical theory assumes that the banking
当局 or natural 軍隊s 原因（となる） the market-率 of 利益／興味 to 満足させる one or other of the above 条件s; and it
調査／捜査するs what 法律s will 治める／統治する the 使用／適用 and rewards of
the community's 生産力のある 資源s 支配する to this 仮定／引き受けること.
With this 制限 in 軍隊, the 容積／容量 of 生産（高） depends
単独で on the assumed constant level of 雇用 in 合同
with the 現在の 器具／備品 and technique; and we are 安全に
ensconced in a Ricardian world.
一時期／支部 18
I
We have now reached a point where we can gather together the threads of our argument. To begin with, it may be useful to make （疑いを）晴らす which elements in the 経済的な system we usually take as given, which are the 独立した・無所属 variables of our system and which are the 扶養家族 variables.
We take as given the 存在するing 技術 and 量 of 利用できる 労働, the 存在するing 質 and 量 of 利用できる 器具／備品, the 存在するing technique, the degree of 競争, the tastes and habits of the 消費者, the disutility of different intensities of 労働 and of the activities of 監督 and organisation, 同様に as the social structure 含むing the 軍隊s, other than our variables 始める，決める 前へ／外へ below, which 決定する the 配当 of the 国民所得. This does not mean that we assume these factors to be constant; but 単に that, in this place and 状況, we are not considering or taking into account the 影響s and consequences of changes in them.
Our 独立した・無所属 variables are, in the first instance, the propensity to 消費する, the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 and the 率 of 利益／興味, though, as we have already seen, these are 有能な of その上の 分析.
Our 扶養家族 variables are the 容積／容量 of 雇用 and the 国民所得 (or 国家の （株主への）配当) 手段d in 行う-部隊s.
The factors, which we have taken as given, 影響（力） our 独立した・無所属 variables, but do not 完全に 決定する them. For example, the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 depends partly on the 存在するing 量 of 器具／備品 which is one of the given factors, but partly on the 明言する／公表する of long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 期待 which cannot be inferred from the given factors. But there are 確かな other elements which the given factors 決定する so 完全に that we can 扱う／治療する these derivatives as 存在 themselves given. For example, the given factors 許す us to infer what level of 国民所得 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 行う-部隊 will correspond to any given level of 雇用; so that, within the 経済的な 枠組み which we take as given, the 国民所得 depends on the 容積／容量 of 雇用, i.e. on the 量 of 成果／努力 現在／一般に 充てるd to 生産／産物, in the sense that there is a unique correlation between the two. その上に, they 許す us to infer the 形態／調整 of the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事s, which 具体的に表現する the physical 条件s of 供給（する）, for different types of 製品s;ｾthat is to say, the 量 of 雇用 which will be 充てるd to 生産／産物 corresponding to any given level of 効果的な 需要・要求する 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s. Finally, they furnish us with the 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事 of 労働 (or 成果／努力); so that they tell us の間の alia at what point the 雇用 機能（する）／行事 for 労働 as a whole will 中止する to be elastic.
The schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 depends, however, partly on the given factors and partly on the 見込みのある 産する／生じる of 資本／首都-資産s of different 肉親，親類d; whilst the 率 of 利益／興味 depends partly on the 明言する／公表する of liquidity-preference (i.e. on the liquidity 機能（する）／行事) and partly on the 量 of money 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s. Thus we can いつかs regard our ultimate 独立した・無所属 variables as consisting of (i) the three 根底となる psychological factors, すなわち, the psychological propensity to 消費する, the psychological 態度 to liquidity and the psychological 期待 of 未来 産する／生じる from 資本／首都-資産s, (2) the 行う-部隊 as 決定するd by the 取引s reached between 雇用者s and 雇うd, and (3) the 量 of money as 決定するd by the 活動／戦闘 of the central bank; so that, if we take as given the factors 明示するd above, these variables 決定する the 国家の income (or （株主への）配当) and the 量 of 雇用. But these again would be 有能な of 存在 支配するd to その上の 分析, and are not, so to speak, our ultimate 原子の 独立した・無所属 elements.
The 分割 of the determinants of the 経済的な system into
the two groups of given factors and 独立した・無所属 variables is, of
course, やめる 独断的な from any 絶対の 見地. The
分割 must be made 完全に on the basis of experience, so as
to correspond on the one 手渡す to the factors in which the changes
seem to be so slow or so little 関連した as to have only a small
and comparatively ごくわずかの short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 影響（力） on our quaesitum;
and on the other 手渡す to those factors in which the changes are
設立する in practice to 演習 a 支配的な 影響（力） on our quaesitum.
Our 現在の 反対する is to discover what 決定するs at any time the
国民所得 of a given 経済的な system and (which is almost
the same thing) the 量 of its 雇用; which means in a
熟考する／考慮する so コンビナート／複合体 as 経済的なs, in which we cannot hope to make
完全に 正確な generalisations, the factors whose changes おもに
決定する our quaesitum. Our final 仕事 might be to
select those variables which can be deliberately controlled or
managed by central 当局 in the 肉親，親類d of system in which we
現実に live.
II
Let us now 試みる／企てる to summarise the argument of the previous
一時期／支部s; taking the factors in the 逆転する order to that in
which we have introduced them.
There will be an 誘導 to 押し進める the 率 of new 投資 to the point which 軍隊s the 供給（する）-price of each type of 資本／首都-資産 to a 人物／姿／数字 which, taken in 合同 with its 見込みのある 産する／生じる, brings the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 in general to approximate equality with the 率 of 利益／興味. That is to say, the physical 条件s of 供給（する） in the 資本／首都-goods 産業s, the 明言する／公表する of 信用／信任 関心ing the 見込みのある 産する／生じる, the psychological 態度 to liquidity and the 量 of money (preferably calculated ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s) 決定する, between them, the 率 of new 投資.
But an 増加する (or 減少（する）) in the 率 of 投資 will have to carry with it an 増加する (or 減少（する）) in the 率 of 消費; because the behaviour of the public is, in general, of such a character that they are only willing to 広げる (or 狭くする) the gap between their income and their 消費 if their income is 存在 増加するd (or 減らすd). That is to say, changes in the 率 of 消費 are, in general, in the same direction (though smaller in 量) as changes in the 率 of income. The relation between the increment of 消費 which has to …を伴って a given increment of saving is given by the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する. The 割合, thus 決定するd, between an increment of 投資 and the corresponding increment of aggregate income, both 手段d in 行う-部隊s, is given by the 投資 multiplier.
Finally, if we assume (as a first approximation) that the 雇用 multiplier is equal to the 投資 multiplier, we can, by 適用するing the multiplier to the increment (or decrement) in the 率 of 投資 brought about by the factors first 述べるd, infer the increment of 雇用.
An increment (or decrement) of 雇用 is liable, however, to raise (or lower) the schedule of liquidity-preference; there 存在 three ways in which it will tend to 増加する the 需要・要求する for money, inasmuch as the value of 生産（高） will rise when 雇用 増加するs even if the 行う-部隊 and prices (ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 行う-部隊) are 不変の, but, in 新規加入, the 行う-部隊 itself will tend to rise as 雇用 改善するs, and the 増加する in 生産（高） will be …を伴ってd by a rise of prices (ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 行う-部隊) 借りがあるing to 増加するing cost in the short period.
Thus the position of equilibrium will be 影響（力）d by these
repercussions; and there are other repercussions also. Moreover,
there is not one of the above factors which is not liable to
change without much 警告, and いつかs 大幅に. Hence
the extreme 複雑さ of the actual course of events.
にもかかわらず, these seem to be the factors which it is useful and
convenient to 孤立する. If we 診察する any actual problem along the
lines of the above schematism, we shall find it more manageable;
and our practical intuition (which can take account of a more
詳細（に述べる）d コンビナート／複合体 of facts than can be 扱う／治療するd on general
原則s) will be 申し込む／申し出d a いっそう少なく intractable 構成要素 upon
which to work.
III
The above is a 要約 of the General Theory. But the actual phenomena of the 経済的な system are also coloured by 確かな special 特徴 of the propensity to 消費する, the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 and the 率 of 利益／興味, about which we can 安全に generalise from experience, but which are not 論理（学）上 necessary.
In particular, it is an 優れた characteristic of the 経済的な system in which we live that, whilst it is 支配する to 厳しい fluctuations in 尊敬（する）・点 of 生産（高） and 雇用, it is not violently 安定性のない. Indeed it seems 有能な of remaining in a chronic 条件 of subnormal activity for a かなりの period without any 示すd 傾向 either に向かって 回復 or に向かって 完全にする 崩壊（する）. Moreover, the 証拠 示すs that 十分な, or even だいたい 十分な, 雇用 is of rare and short-lived occurrence. Fluctuations may start briskly but seem to wear themselves out before they have proceeded to 広大な／多数の／重要な extremes, and an 中間の 状況／情勢 which is neither desperate nor 満足な is our normal lot. It is upon the fact that fluctuations tend to wear themselves out before 訴訟／進行 to extremes and 結局 to 逆転する themselves, that the theory of 商売／仕事 cycles having a 正規の／正選手 段階 has been 設立するd. The same thing is true of prices, which; in 返答 to an 始めるing 原因（となる） of 騒動, seem to be able to find a level at which they can remain, for the time 存在, moderately stable.
Now, since these facts of experience do not follow of 論理（学）の necessity, one must suppose that the 環境 and the psychological propensities of the modern world must be of such a character as to produce these results. It is, therefore, useful to consider what hypothetical psychological propensities would lead to a stable system; and, then, whether these propensities can be plausibly ascribed, on our general knowledge of 同時代の human nature, to the world in which we live.
The 条件s of 安定 which the foregoing 分析 示唆するs to us as 有能な of explaining the 観察するd results are the に引き続いて:
(i) The ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する is such that, when the 生産（高） of a given community 増加するs (or 減少（する）s) because more (or いっそう少なく) 雇用 is 存在 適用するd to its 資本／首都 器具／備品, the multiplier relating the two is greater than まとまり but not very large.
(ii) When there is a change in the 見込みのある 産する／生じる of 資本／首都 or in the 率 of 利益／興味, the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 will be such that the change in new 投資 will not be in 広大な／多数の／重要な disproportion to the change in the former; i.e. 穏健な changes in the 見込みのある 産する／生じる of 資本／首都 or in the 率 of 利益／興味 will not be associated with very 広大な／多数の／重要な changes in the 率 of 投資.
(iii) When there is a change in 雇用, money-給料 tend to change in the same direction as, but not in 広大な／多数の／重要な disproportion to, the change in 雇用; i.e. 穏健な changes in 雇用 are not associated with very 広大な／多数の／重要な changes in money-給料. This is a 条件 of the 安定 of prices rather than of 雇用.
(iv) We may 追加する a fourth 条件, which 供給するs not so much for the 安定 of the system as for the 傾向 of a fluctuation in one direction to 逆転する itself in 予定 course; すなわち, that a 率 of 投資, higher (or lower) than 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるd 以前は, begins to 反応する unfavourably (or favourably) on the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 if it is continued for a period which, 手段d in years, is not very large.
(i) Our first 条件 of 安定, すなわち, that the multiplier, whilst greater than まとまり, is not very 広大な／多数の／重要な, is 高度に plausible as a psychological characteristic of human nature. As real income 増加するs, both the 圧力 of 現在の needs 減らすs and the 利ざや over the 設立するd 基準 of life is 増加するd; and as real income 減らすs the opposite is true. Thus it is naturalｾat any 率 on the 普通の／平均（する） of the communityｾthat 現在の 消費 should be 拡大するd when 雇用 増加するs, but by いっそう少なく than the 十分な increment of real income; and that it should be 減らすd when 雇用 減らすs, but by いっそう少なく than the 十分な decrement of real income. Moreover, what is true of the 普通の／平均（する） of individuals is likely to be also true of 政府s, 特に in an age when a 進歩／革新的な 増加する of 失業 will usually 軍隊 the 明言する／公表する to 供給する 救済 out of borrowed 基金s.
But whether or not this psychological 法律 strikes the reader as plausible a priori, it is 確かな that experience would be 極端に different from what it is if the 法律 did not 持つ／拘留する. For in that 事例／患者 an 増加する of 投資, however small, would 始める，決める moving a cumulative 増加する of 効果的な 需要・要求する until a position of 十分な 雇用 had been reached; while a 減少（する） of 投資 would 始める，決める moving a cumulative 減少（する） of 効果的な 需要・要求する until no one at all was 雇うd. Yet experience shows that we are 一般に in an 中間の position. It is not impossible that there may be a 範囲 within which 不安定 does in fact 勝つ／広く一帯に広がる. But, if so, it is probably a 狭くする one, outside of which in either direction our psychological 法律 must unquestionably 持つ／拘留する good. その上に, it is also evident that the multiplier, though 越えるing まとまり, is not, in normal circumstances, enormously large. For, if it were, a given change in the 率 of 投資 would 伴う／関わる a 広大な／多数の／重要な change (限られた／立憲的な only by 十分な or 無 雇用) in the 率 of 消費.
(ii) Whilst our first 条件 供給するs that a 穏健な change in the 率 of 投資 will not 伴う／関わる an 無期限に／不明確に 広大な／多数の／重要な change in the 需要・要求する for 消費-goods our second 条件 供給するs that a 穏健な change in the 見込みのある 産する／生じる of 資本／首都-資産s or in the 率 of 利益／興味 will not 伴う／関わる an 無期限に／不明確に 広大な／多数の／重要な change in the 率 of 投資. This is likely to be the 事例／患者 借りがあるing to the 増加するing cost of producing a 大いに 大きくするd 生産（高） from the 存在するing 器具／備品. If, indeed, we start from a position where there are very large 黒字／過剰 資源s for the 生産／産物 of 資本／首都-資産s, there may be かなりの 不安定 within a 確かな 範囲; but this will 中止する to 持つ／拘留する good as soon as the 黒字／過剰 is 存在 大部分は utilised. Moreover, this 条件 始める，決めるs a 限界 to the 不安定 resulting from 早い changes in the 見込みのある 産する／生じる of 資本／首都-資産s 予定 to sharp fluctuations in 商売／仕事 psychology or to 時代-making 発明sｾthough more, perhaps, in the 上向き than in the downward direction.
(iii) Our third 条件 （許可，名誉などを）与えるs with our experience of human nature. For although the struggle for money-給料 is, as we have pointed out above, essentially a struggle to 持続する a high 親族 行う, this struggle is likely, as 雇用 増加するs, to be 強めるd in each individual 事例／患者 both because the 取引ing position of the 労働者 is 改善するd and because the 減らすd ごくわずかの 公共事業（料金）／有用性 of his 行う and his 改善するd 財政上の 利ざや make him readier to run 危険s. Yet, all the same, these 動機s will operate within 限界s, and 労働者s will not 捜し出す a much greater money-行う when 雇用 改善するs or 許す a very 広大な／多数の／重要な 削減 rather than 苦しむ any 失業 at all.
But here again, whether or not this 結論 is plausible a priori, experience shows that some such psychological 法律 must 現実に 持つ／拘留する. For if 競争 between 失業した 労働者s always led to a very 広大な／多数の／重要な 削減 of the money-行う, there would be a violent 不安定 in the price-level. Moreover, there might be no position of stable equilibrium except in 条件s 一貫した with 十分な 雇用; since the 行う-部隊 might have to 落ちる without 限界 until it reached a point where the 影響 of the 豊富 of money ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 行う-部隊 on the 率 of 利益／興味 was 十分な to 回復する a level of 十分な 雇用. At no other point could there be a 残り／休憩（する）ing-place.
(iv) Our fourth 条件, which is a 条件 not so much of 安定 as of 補欠／交替の／交替する 後退，不況 and 回復, is 単に based on the presumption that 資本／首都-資産s are of さまざまな ages, wear out with time and are not all very long-lived; so that if the 率 of 投資 落ちるs below a 確かな 最小限 level, it is 単に a question of time (failing large fluctuations in other factors) before the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 rises 十分に to bring about a 回復 of 投資 above this 最小限. And 類似して, of course, if 投資 rises to a higher 人物／姿／数字 than 以前は, it is only a question of time before the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 落ちるs 十分に to bring about a 後退，不況 unless there are 補償するing changes in other factors.
For this 推論する／理由, even those degrees of 回復 and 後退，不況, which can occur within the 制限s 始める，決める by our other 条件s of 安定, will be likely, if they 固執する for a 十分な length of time and are not 干渉するd with by changes in the other factors, to 原因（となる） a 逆転する movement in the opposite direction, until the same 軍隊s as before again 逆転する the direction.
Thus our four 条件s together are 適する to explain the 優れた features of our actual experience;ｾすなわち, that we oscillate, 避けるing the gravest extremes of fluctuation in 雇用 and in prices in both directions, 一連の会議、交渉／完成する an 中間の position appreciably below 十分な 雇用 and appreciably above the 最小限 雇用 a 拒絶する／低下する below which would 危うくする life.
But we must not 結論する that the mean position thus
決定するd by 'natural' 傾向s, すなわち, by those 傾向s
which are likely to 固執する, failing 対策 expressly designed
to 訂正する them, is, therefore, 設立するd by 法律s of necessity.
The unimpeded 支配する of the above 条件s is a fact of
観察 関心ing the world as it is or has been, and not a
necessary 原則 which cannot be changed.
一時期／支部 19
I
It would have been an advantage if the 影響s of a change in money-給料 could have been discussed in an earlier 一時期／支部. For the classical theory has been accustomed to 残り／休憩（する） the 恐らく self-adjusting character of the 経済的な system on an assumed fluidity of money-給料; and, when there is rigidity, to lay on this rigidity the 非難する of maladjustment.
It was not possible, however, to discuss this 事柄 fully until our own theory had been developed. For the consequences of a change in money-給料 are 複雑にするd. A 削減 in money-給料 is やめる 有能な in 確かな circumstances of affording a 刺激 to 生産（高）, as the classical theory supposes. My difference from this theory is まず第一に／本来 a difference of 分析; so that it could not be 始める，決める 前へ／外へ 明確に until the reader was 熟知させるd with my own method.
The 一般に 受託するd explanation is, as I understand it,
やめる a simple one. It does not depend on roundabout
repercussions, such as we shall discuss below. The argument
簡単に is that a 削減 in money-給料 will cet. par.
刺激する 需要・要求する by 減らすing the price of the finished
製品, and will therefore 増加する 生産（高） and 雇用 up to
the point where the 削減 which 労働 has agreed to 受託する
in its money-給料 is just 相殺する by the 減らすing ごくわずかの
efficiency of 労働 as 生産（高） (from a given 器具／備品) is
増加するd.
In its crudest form, this is tantamount to assuming that the 削減 in money-給料 will leave 需要・要求する 影響を受けない. There may be some 経済学者s who would 持続する that there is no 推論する／理由 why 需要・要求する should be 影響する／感情d, arguing that aggregate 需要・要求する depends on the 量 of money multiplied by the income-velocity of money and that there is no obvious 推論する／理由 why a 削減 in money-給料 would 減ずる either the 量 of money or its income-velocity. Or they may even argue that 利益（をあげる）s will やむを得ず go up because 給料 have gone 負かす／撃墜する. But it would, I think, be more usual to agree that the 削減 in money-給料 may have some 影響 on aggregate 需要・要求する through its 減ずるing the 購入（する）ing 力／強力にする of some of the 労働者s, but that the real 需要・要求する of other factors, whose money incomes have not been 減ずるd, will be 刺激するd by the 落ちる in prices, and that the aggregate 需要・要求する of the 労働者s themselves will be very likely 増加するd as a result of the 増加するd 容積／容量 of 雇用, unless the elasticity of 需要・要求する for 労働 in 返答 to changes in money-給料 is いっそう少なく than まとまり. Thus in the new equilibrium there will be more 雇用 than there would have been さもなければ except, perhaps, in some unusual 限界ing 事例／患者 which has no reality in practice.
It is from this type of 分析 that I fundamentally 異なる; or rather from the 分析 which seems to 嘘（をつく） behind such 観察s as the above. For whilst the above 公正に／かなり 代表するs, I think, the way in which many 経済学者s talk and 令状, the underlying 分析 has seldom been written 負かす／撃墜する in 詳細（に述べる）.
It appears, however, that this way of thinking is probably reached as follows. In any given 産業 we have a 需要・要求する schedule for the 製品 relating the 量s which can be sold to the prices asked; we have a 一連の 供給（する） schedules relating the prices which will be asked for the sale of different 量s on さまざまな bases of cost; and these schedules between them lead up to a その上の schedule which, on the 仮定／引き受けること that other costs are 不変の (except as a result of the change in 生産（高）), gives us the 需要・要求する schedule for 労働 in the 産業 relating the 量 of 雇用 to different levels of 給料, the 形態／調整 of the curve at any point furnishing the elasticity of 需要・要求する for 労働. This conception is then transferred without 相当な modification to 産業 as a whole; and it is supposed, by a parity of 推論する／理由ing, that we have a 需要・要求する schedule for 労働 in 産業 as a whole relating the 量 of 雇用 to different levels of 給料. It is held that it makes no 構成要素 difference to this argument whether it is ーに関して／ーの点でs of money-給料 or of real 給料. If we are thinking ーに関して／ーの点でs of money-給料, we must, of course, 訂正する for changes in the value of money; but this leaves the general 傾向 of the argument 不変の, since prices certainly do not change in exact 割合 to changes in money-給料.
If this is the 基礎 of the argument (and, if it is not,
I do not know what the 基礎 is), surely it is fallacious.
For the 需要・要求する schedules for particular 産業s can only be
建設するd on some 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 仮定／引き受けること as to the nature of the
需要・要求する and 供給（する） schedules of other 産業s and as to the
量 of the aggregate 効果的な 需要・要求する. It is 無効の,
therefore, to 移転 the argument to 産業 as a whole unless
we also 移転 our 仮定／引き受けること that the aggregate 効果的な
需要・要求する is 直す／買収する，八百長をするd. Yet this 仮定／引き受けること 減ずるs the argument to an ignoratio
elenchi. For, whilst no one would wish to 否定する the
proposition that a 削減 in money-給料 …を伴ってd by the
same aggregate 効果的な 需要・要求する as before will be associated
with an 増加する in 雇用, the 正確な question at 問題／発行する is
whether the 削減 in money-給料 will or will not be
…を伴ってd by the same aggregate 効果的な 需要・要求する as before
手段d in money, or, at any 率, by an aggregate 効果的な
需要・要求する which is not 減ずるd in 十分な 割合 to the 削減 in money-給料
(i.e. which is somewhat greater 手段d in 行う-部隊s). But if
the classical theory is not 許すd to 延長する by analogy its
結論s in 尊敬（する）・点 of a particular 産業 to 産業 as a
whole, it is wholly unable to answer the question what 影響 on
雇用 a 削減 in money-給料 will have. For it has no
method of 分析 wherewith to 取り組む the problem. Professor
Pigou's Theory of 失業 seems to me to get out of
the classical theory all that can be got out of it; with the
result that the 調書をとる／予約する becomes a striking demonstration that this
theory has nothing to 申し込む／申し出, when it is 適用するd to the problem of
what 決定するs the 容積／容量 of actual 雇用 as a
whole.
II
Let us, then, 適用する our own method of 分析 to answering the problem. It 落ちるs into two parts. (i) Does a 削減 in money-給料 have a direct 傾向, cet. par., to 増加する 雇用, 'cet. par.' 存在 taken to mean that the propensity to 消費する, the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 and the 率 of 利益／興味 are the same as before for the community as a whole? And (2) does a 削減 in money-給料 have a 確かな or probable.傾向 to 影響する／感情 雇用 in a particular direction through its 確かな or probable repercussions on these three factors?
The first question we have already answered in the 消極的な in the 先行する 一時期／支部s. For we have shown that the 容積／容量 of 雇用 is uniquely correlated with the 容積／容量 ofeffective 需要・要求する 手段d in 行う-部隊s, and that the 効果的な 需要・要求する, 存在 the sum of the 推定する／予想するd 消費 and the 推定する／予想するd 投資, cannot change, if the propensity to 消費する, the schedule of ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 and the 率 of 利益／興味 are all 不変の. If, without any change in these factors, the entrepreneurs were to 増加する 雇用 as a whole, their proceeds will やむを得ず 落ちる short of their 供給（する）-price.
Perhaps it will help to rebut the 天然のまま 結論 that a 削減 in money-給料 will 増加する 雇用 'because it 減ずるs the cost of 生産／産物', if we follow up the course of events on the hypothesis most favourable to this 見解（をとる）, すなわち that at the 手始め entrepreneurs 推定する／予想する the 削減 in money-給料 to have this 影響. It is indeed not ありそうもない that the individual entrepreneur, seeing his own costs 減ずるd, will overlook at the 手始め the repercussions on the 需要・要求する for his 製品 and will 行為／法令／行動する on the 仮定／引き受けること that he will be able to sell at a 利益（をあげる） a larger 生産（高） than before. If, then, entrepreneurs 一般に 行為／法令／行動する on this 期待, will they in fact 後継する in 増加するing their 利益（をあげる）s? Only if the community's ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する is equal to まとまり, so that there is no gap between the increment of income and the increment of 消費; or if there is an 増加する in 投資, corresponding to the gap between the increment of income and the increment of 消費, which will only occur if the schedule of ごくわずかの efficiencies of 資本／首都 has 増加するd 比較して to the 率 of 利益／興味. Thus the proceeds realised from the 増加するd 生産（高） will disappoint the entrepreneurs and 雇用 will 落ちる 支援する again to its previous 人物／姿／数字, unless the ごくわずかの propensity to 消費する is equal to まとまり or the 削減 in money-給料 has had the 影響 of 増加するing the schedule of ごくわずかの efficiencies of 資本／首都 比較して to the 率 of 利益／興味 and hence the 量 of 投資. For if entrepreneurs 申し込む／申し出 雇用 on a 規模 which, if they could sell their 生産（高） at the 推定する／予想するd price, would 供給する the public with incomes out of which they would save more than the 量 of 現在の 投資, entrepreneurs are bound to make a loss equal to the difference; and this will be the 事例／患者 絶対 irrespective of the level of money-給料. At the best, the date of their 失望 can only be 延期するd for the interval during which their own 投資 in 増加するd working 資本／首都 is filling the gap.
Thus the 削減 in money-給料 will have no 継続している 傾向 to 増加する 雇用 except by virtue of its repercussion either on the propensity to 消費する for the community as a whole, or on the schedule of ごくわずかの efficiencies of 資本／首都, or on the 率 of 利益／興味. There is no method of analysing the 影響 of a 削減 in money-給料, except by に引き続いて up its possible 影響s on these three factors.
The most important repercussions on these factors are likely, in practice, to be the に引き続いて:
(1) A 削減 of money-給料 will somewhat 減ずる prices. It will, therefore, 伴う／関わる some 議席数是正 of real income (a) from 行う-earners to other factors entering into ごくわずかの prime cost whose remuneration has not been 減ずるd, and (b) from entrepreneurs to rentiers to whom a 確かな income 直す／買収する，八百長をするd ーに関して／ーの点でs of money has been 保証（人）d.
What will be the 影響 of this 議席数是正 on the propensity to 消費する for the community as a whole? The 移転 from 行う-earners to other factors is likely to 減らす the propensity to 消費する. The 影響 of the 移転 from entrepreneurs to rentiers is more open to 疑問. But if rentiers 代表する on the whole the richer section of the community and those whose 基準 of life is least 柔軟な, then the 影響 of this also will be unfavourable. What the 逮捕する result will be on a balance of considerations, we can only guess. Probably it is more likely to be 逆の than favourable.
(2) If we are 取引，協定ing with an unclosed system, and the 削減 of money-給料 is a 削減 比較して to money-給料 abroad when both are 減ずるd to a ありふれた 部隊, it is evident that the change will be favourable to 投資, since it will tend to 増加する the balance of 貿易（する）. This assumes, of course, that the advantage is not 相殺する by a change in 関税s, 割当s, etc. The greater strength of the 伝統的な belief in the efficacy of a 削減 in money-給料 as a means of 増加するing 雇用 in 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain, as compared with the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs, is probably attributable to the latter 存在, comparatively with ourselves, a の近くにd system.
(3) In the 事例／患者 of an unclosed system, a 削減 of money-給料, though it 増加するs the favourable balance of 貿易（する）, is likely to より悪くする the 条件 of 貿易（する）. Thus there will be a 削減 in real incomes, except in the 事例／患者 of the newly 雇うd, which may tend to 増加する the propensity to 消費する.
(4) If the 削減 of money-給料 is 推定する／予想するd to be a 削減 比較して to money-給料 in the 未来, the change will be favourable to 投資, because as we have seen above, it will 増加する the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都; whilst for the same 推論する／理由 it may be favourable to 消費. If, on the other 手渡す, the 削減 leads to the 期待, or even to the serious 可能性, of a その上の 行う-削減 in prospect, it will have 正確に the opposite 影響. For it will 減らす the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 and will lead to the 延期 both of 投資 and of 消費.
(5) The 削減 in the 給料-法案, …を伴ってd by some 削減 in prices and in money-incomes 一般に, will 減らす the need for cash for income and 商売／仕事 目的s; and it will therefore 減ずる プロの／賛成の tanto the schedule of liquidity-preference for the community as a whole. Cet. par. this will 減ずる the 率 of 利益／興味 and thus 証明する favourable to 投資. In this 事例／患者, however, the 影響 of 期待 関心ing the 未来 will be of an opposite 傾向 to those just considered under (4). For, if 給料 and prices are 推定する／予想するd to rise again later on, the favourable reaction will be much いっそう少なく pronounced in the 事例／患者 of long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 貸付金s than in that of short-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 貸付金s. If, moreover, the 削減 in 給料 乱すs political 信用／信任 by 原因（となる）ing popular discontent, the 増加する in liquidity-preference 予定 to this 原因（となる） may more than 相殺する the 解放（する） of cash from the active 循環／発行部数.
(6) Since a special 削減 of money-給料 is always advantageous to an individual entrepreneur or 産業, a general 削減 (though its actual 影響s are different) may also produce an 楽観的な トン in the minds of entrepreneurs, which may break through a vicious circle of unduly 悲観的な 見積（る）s of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 and 始める，決める things moving again on a more normal basis of 期待. On the other 手渡す, if the 労働者s make the same mistake as their 雇用者s about the 影響s of a general 削減, 労働 troubles may 相殺する this favourable factor; apart from which, since there is, as a 支配する, no means of 安全な・保証するing a 同時の and equal 削減 of money-給料 in all 産業s, it is in the 利益／興味 of all 労働者s to resist a 削減 in their own particular 事例／患者. In fact, a movement by 雇用者s to 改訂する money-行う 取引s downward will be much more 堅固に resisted than a 漸進的な and (a)自動的な／(n)自動拳銃 lowering of real 給料 as a result of rising prices.
(7) On the other 手渡す, the depressing 影響（力） on entrepreneurs of their greater 重荷（を負わせる） of 負債 may partly 相殺する any cheerful reactions from the 削減 of 給料. Indeed if the 落ちる of 給料 and prices goes far, the 当惑 of those entrepreneurs who are ひどく indebted may soon reach the point of insolvency,ｾwith 厳しく 逆の 影響s on 投資. Moreover the 影響 of the lower price-level on the real 重荷（を負わせる） of the 国家の 負債 and hence on 課税 is likely to 証明する very 逆の to 商売／仕事 信用／信任.
This is not a 完全にする 目録 of all the possible reactions of 行う 削減s in the コンビナート／複合体 real world. But the above cover, I think, those which are usually the most important.
If, therefore, we 制限する our argument to the 事例／患者 of a の近くにd system, and assume that there is nothing to be hoped, but if anything the contrary, from the repercussions of the new 配当 of real incomes on the community's propensity to spend, it follows that we must base any hopes of favourable results to 雇用 from a 削減 in money-給料 おもに on an 改良 in 投資 予定 either to an 増加するd ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 under (4) or a 減少（する）d 率 of 利益／興味 under (5). Let us consider these two 可能性s in その上の 詳細（に述べる）.
The contingency, which is favourable to an 増加する in the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都, is that in which money-給料 are believed to have touched 底（に届く）, so that その上の changes are 推定する／予想するd to be in the 上向き direction. The most unfavourable contingency is that in which money-給料 are slowly sagging downwards and each 削減 in 給料 serves to 減らす 信用／信任 in the 見込みのある 維持／整備 of 給料. When we enter on a period of 弱めるing 効果的な 需要・要求する, a sudden large 削減 of money-給料 to a level so low that no one believes in its 不明確な／無期限の continuance would be the event most favourable to a 強化するing of 効果的な 需要・要求する. But this could only be 遂行するd by 行政の 法令 and is scarcely practical politics under a system of 解放する／自由な 行う-取引ing. On the other 手渡す, it would be much better that 給料 should be rigidly 直す／買収する，八百長をするd and みなすd incapable of 構成要素 changes, than that 不景気s should be …を伴ってd by a 漸進的な downward 傾向 of money-給料, a その上の 穏健な 行う 削減 存在 推定する／予想するd to signalise each 増加する of; say, 1 per cent in the 量 of 失業. For example, the 影響 of an 期待 that 給料 are going to 下落する by, say, 2 per cent in the coming year will be 概略で 同等（の） to the 影響 of a rise of 2 per cent in the 量 of 利益／興味 payable for the same period. The same 観察s 適用する mutatis mutandis to the 事例／患者 of a にわか景気.
It follows that with the actual practices and 会・原則s of the 同時代の world it is more expedient to 目的（とする） at a rigid money-行う 政策 than at a 柔軟な 政策 答える／応じるing by 平易な 行う／開催する／段階s to changes in the 量 of 失業;ｾso far, that is to say, as the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 is 関心d. But is this 結論 upset when we turn to the 率 of 利益／興味?
It is, therefore, on the 影響 of a 落ちるing 行う- and price-level on the 需要・要求する for money that those who believe in the self-adjusting 質 of the 経済的な system must 残り／休憩（する） the 負わせる of their argument; though I am not aware that they have done so. If the 量 of money is itself a 機能（する）／行事 of the 行う- and price-level, there is indeed, nothing to hope in this direction. But if the 量 of money is 事実上 直す／買収する，八百長をするd, it is evident that its 量 ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s can be 無期限に／不明確に 増加するd by a 十分な 削減 in money-給料; and that its 量 in 割合 to incomes 一般に can be 大部分は 増加するd, the 限界 to this 増加する depending on the 割合 of 行う-cost to ごくわずかの prime cost and on the 返答 of other elements of ごくわずかの prime cost to the 落ちるing 行う-部隊.
We can, therefore, theoretically at least, produce 正確に the same 影響s on the 率 of 利益／興味 by 減ずるing 給料, whilst leaving the 量 of money 不変の, that we can produce by 増加するing the 量 of money whilst leaving the level of 給料 不変の. It follows that 行う 削減s, as a method of 安全な・保証するing 十分な 雇用, are also 支配する to the same 制限s as the method of 増加するing the 量 of money. The same 推論する／理由s as those について言及するd above, which 限界 the efficacy of 増加するs in the 量 of money as a means of 増加するing 投資 to the optimum 人物／姿／数字, 適用する mutatis mutandis to 行う 削減s. Just as a 穏健な 増加する in the 量 of money may 発揮する an 不十分な 影響（力） over the long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 率 of 利益／興味, whilst an immoderate 増加する may 相殺する its other advantages by its 乱すing 影響 on 信用／信任; so a 穏健な 削減 in money-給料 may 証明する 不十分な, whilst an immoderate 削減 might 粉々にする 信用／信任 even if it were practicable.
There is, therefore, no ground for the belief that a 柔軟な 行う 政策 is 有能な of 持続するing a 明言する／公表する of continuous 十分な 雇用;ｾany more than for the belief that an open-market 通貨の 政策 is 有能な, unaided, of 達成するing this result. The 経済的な system cannot be made self-adjusting along these lines.
If, indeed, 労働 were always in a position to take 活動／戦闘 (and were to do so), whenever there was いっそう少なく than 十分な 雇用, to 減ずる its money 需要・要求するs by 一致した 活動／戦闘 to whatever point was 要求するd to make money so abundant 比較して to the 行う-部隊 that the 率 of 利益／興味 would 落ちる to a level 両立できる with 十分な 雇用, we should, in 影響, have 通貨の 管理／経営 by the 貿易（する） unions, 目的（とする）d at 十分な 雇用, instead of by the banking system.
にもかかわらず while a 柔軟な 行う 政策 and a 柔軟な money 政策 come, analytically, to the same thing, inasmuch as they are 代案／選択肢 means of changing the 量 of money ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s, in other 尊敬（する）・点s there is, of course, a world of difference between them. Let me 簡潔に 解任する to the reader's mind the four 優れた considerations.
(i) Except in a socialised community where 行う-政策 is settled by 法令, there is no means of 安全な・保証するing uniform 行う 削減s for every class of 労働. The result can only be brought about by a 一連の 漸進的な, 不規律な changes, 正当と認められる on no criterion of social 司法（官） or 経済的な expedience, and probably 完全にするd only after wasteful and 悲惨な struggles, where those in the weakest 取引ing position will 苦しむ 比較して to the 残り／休憩（する）. A change in the 量 of money, on the other 手渡す, is already within the 力／強力にする of most 政府s by open-market 政策 or analogous 対策. Having regard to human nature and our 会・原則s, it can only be a foolish person who would prefer a 柔軟な 行う 政策 to a 柔軟な money 政策, unless he can point to advantages from the former which are not obtainable from the latter. Moreover, other things 存在 equal, a method which it is comparatively 平易な to 適用する should be みなすd より望ましい to a method which is probably so difficult as to be impracticable.
(ii) If money-給料 are inflexible, such changes in prices as occur (i.e. apart from '治めるd' or monopoly prices which are 決定するd by other considerations besides ごくわずかの cost) will おもに correspond to the 減らすing ごくわずかの 生産性 of the 存在するing 器具／備品 as the 生産（高） from it is 増加するd. Thus the greatest practicable fairness will be 持続するd between 労働 and the factors whose remuneration is contractually 直す／買収する，八百長をするd ーに関して／ーの点でs of money, in particular the rentier class and persons with 直す／買収する，八百長をするd salaries on the 永久の 設立 of a 会社／堅い, an 会・原則 or the 明言する／公表する. If important classes are to have their remuneration 直す／買収する，八百長をするd ーに関して／ーの点でs of money in any 事例／患者, social 司法（官） and social expediency are best served if the remunerations of all factors are somewhat inflexible ーに関して／ーの点でs of money. Having regard to the large groups of incomes which are comparatively inflexible ーに関して／ーの点でs of money, it can only be an 不正な person who would prefer a 柔軟な 行う 政策 to a 柔軟な money 政策, unless he can point to advantages from the former which are not obtainable from the latter.
(iii) The method of 増加するing the 量 of money ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s by 減少（する）ing the 行う-部隊 増加するs proportionately the 重荷（を負わせる） of 負債; 反して the method of producing the same result by 増加するing the 量 of money whilst leaving the 行う-部隊 不変の has the opposite 影響. Having regard to the 過度の 重荷（を負わせる） of many types of 負債, it can only be an inexperienced person who would prefer the former.
(iv) If a sagging 率 of 利益／興味 has to be brought about by a sagging 行う-level, there is, for the 推論する／理由s given above, a 二塁打 drag on the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 and a 二塁打 推論する／理由 for putting off 投資 and thus 延期するing 回復.
III
It follows, therefore, that if 労働 were to 答える／応じる to 条件s of 徐々に 減らすing 雇用 by 申し込む／申し出ing its services at a 徐々に 減らすing money-行う, this would not, as a 支配する, have the 影響 of 減ずるing real 給料 and might even have the 影響 of 増加するing them, through its 逆の 影響（力） on the 容積／容量 of 生産（高）. The 長，指導者 result of this 政策 would be to 原因（となる） a 広大な／多数の／重要な 不安定 of prices, so violent perhaps as to make 商売／仕事 計算／見積りs futile in an 経済的な society 機能（する）／行事ing after the manner of that in which we live. To suppose that a 柔軟な 行う 政策 is a 権利 and proper adjunct of a system which on the whole is one of laissez-faire, is the opposite of the truth. It is only in a 高度に 権威主義者 society, where sudden, 相当な, all-一連の会議、交渉／完成する changes could be 法令d that a 柔軟な 行う 政策 could 機能（する）／行事 with success. One can imagine it in 操作／手術 in Italy, Germany or Russia, but not in フラン, the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs or 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain.
If, as in Australia, an 試みる／企てる were made to 直す／買収する，八百長をする real 給料 by 法律制定, then there would be a 確かな level of 雇用 corresponding to that level of real 給料; and the actual level of 雇用 would, in a の近くにd system, oscillate violently between that level and no 雇用 at all, （許可，名誉などを）与えるing as the 率 of 投資 was or was not below the 率 両立できる with that level; whilst prices would be in 安定性のない equilibrium when 投資 was at the 批判的な level, racing to 無 whenever 投資 was below it, and to infinity whenever it was above it. The element of 安定 would have to be 設立する, if at all, in the factors controlling the 量 of money 存在 so 決定するd that there always 存在するd some level of money-給料 at which the 量 of money would be such as to 設立する a relation between the 率 of 利益／興味 and the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 which would 持続する 投資 at the 批判的な level. In this event 雇用 would be constant (at the level appropriate to the 合法的な real 行う) with money-給料 and prices fluctuating 速く in the degree just necessary to 持続する this 率 of 投資 at the appropriate 人物／姿／数字. In the actual 事例／患者 of Australia, the escape was 設立する, partly of course in the 必然的な inefficacy of the 法律制定 to 達成する its 反対する, and partly in Australia not 存在 a の近くにd system, so that the level of money-給料 was itself a determinant of the level of foreign 投資 and hence of total 投資, whilst the 条件 of 貿易（する） were an important 影響（力） on real 給料.
In the light of these considerations I am now of the opinion that the 維持／整備 of a stable general level of money-給料 is, on a balance of considerations, the most advisable 政策 for a の近くにd system; whilst the same 結論 will 持つ／拘留する good for an open system, 供給するd that equilibrium with the 残り／休憩（する） of the world can be 安全な・保証するd by means of fluctuating 交流s. There are advantages in some degree of 柔軟性 in the 給料 of particular 産業s so as to 促進する 移転s from those which are 比較して 拒絶する／低下するing to those which are 比較して 拡大するing. But the money-行う level as a whole should be 持続するd as stable as possible, at any 率 in the short period.
This 政策 will result in a fair degree of 安定 in the price-level;ｾgreater 安定, at least, than with a 柔軟な 行う 政策. Apart from '治めるd' or monopoly prices, the price-level will only change in the short period in 返答 to the extent that changes in the 容積／容量 of 雇用 影響する／感情 ごくわずかの prime costs; whilst in the long period they will only change in 返答 to changes in the cost of 生産／産物 予定 to new techniques and new or 増加するd 器具／備品.
It is true that, if there are, にもかかわらず, large fluctuations in 雇用, 相当な fluctuations in the price-level will …を伴って them. But the fluctuations will be いっそう少なく, as I have said above, than with a 柔軟な 行う 政策.
Thus with a rigid 行う 政策 the 安定 of prices will be
bound up in the short period with the avoidance of fluctuations
in 雇用. In the long period, on the other 手渡す, we are
still left with the choice between a 政策 of 許すing prices to
落ちる slowly with the 進歩 of technique and 器具／備品 whilst
keeping 給料 stable, or of 許すing 給料 to rise slowly whilst
keeping prices stable. On the whole my preference is for the
latter 代案／選択肢, on account of the fact that it is easier with
an 期待 of higher 給料 in 未来 to keep the actual level
of 雇用 within a given 範囲 of 十分な 雇用 than with
an 期待 of lower 給料 in 未来, and on account also of
the social advantages of 徐々に 減らすing the 重荷（を負わせる） of
負債, the greater 緩和する of 調整 from decaying to growing
産業s, and the psychological 激励 likely to be felt
from a 穏健な 傾向 for money-給料 to 増加する. But no
必須の point of 原則 is 伴う／関わるd, and it would lead me
beyond the 範囲 of my 現在の 目的 to develop in 詳細（に述べる） the
arguments on either 味方する.
虫垂 to 一時期／支部 19
Professor Pigou in his Theory of 失業 makes the 容積／容量 of 雇用 to depend on two 根底となる factors, すなわち (i) the real 率s of 給料 for which workpeople 規定する, and (2) the 形態／調整 of the Real 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 for 労働. The central sections of his 調書をとる／予約する are 関心d with 決定するing the 形態／調整 of the latter 機能（する）／行事. The fact that workpeople in fact 規定する, not for a real 率 of 給料, but for a money-率, is not ignored; but, in 影響, it is assumed that the actual money-率 of 給料 divided by the price of 行う-goods can be taken to 手段 the real 率 需要・要求するd.
The equations which, as he says, 'form the starting point of the enquiry' into the Real 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 for 労働 are given in his Theory of 失業, p. 90. Since the tacit 仮定／引き受けることs, which 治める／統治する the 使用／適用 of his 分析, slip in 近づく the 手始め of his argument, I will summarise his 治療 up to the 決定的な point.
Professor Pigou divides 産業s into those 'engaged in
making 行う-goods at home and in making 輸出（する）s the sale of which
creates （人命などを）奪う，主張するs to 行う-goods abroad' and the 'other' 産業s:
which it is convenient to call the 行う-goods 産業s and the
非，不，無-行う-goods 産業s それぞれ. He supposes x men
to be 雇うd in the former and y men in the latter. The
生産（高） in value of 行う-goods of the x men he calls F(x);
and the general 率 of 給料 F'(x). This, though
he does not stop to について言及する it, is tantamount to assuming that
ごくわずかの 行う-cost is equal to ごくわずかの prime cost.
その上の, he assumes that x + y = f(x), i.e. that the number of men
雇うd in the 行う-goods 産業s is a 機能（する）／行事 of total
雇用. He then shows that the elasticity of the real 需要・要求する
for 労働 in the aggregate (which gives us the 形態／調整 of our
quaesitum, すなわち the Real 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 for 労働) can be
written
f'(x) F'(x)
Er = ｾｾｾ ﾗ ｾｾｾｾ
f(x) F"(x)
So far as notation goes, there is no 重要な difference
between this and my own 方式s of 表現. In so far as we can
identify Professor Pigou's 行う-goods with my 消費-goods,
and his 'other goods' with my 投資-goods, it follows that
his F(x) / F'(x),
存在 the value of the 生産（高） of the 行う-goods 産業s in
条件 of the 行う-部隊, is the same as my Cw.
その上に, his 機能（する）／行事 is (支配する to the 身元確認，身分証明 of
行う-goods with 消費-goods) a 機能（する）／行事 of what I have
called above the 雇用 multiplier k'. For
Dx = k'Dy,
1
so that f'(x) = 1 + ｾｾ
k
Thus Professor Pigou's 'elasticity of the real 需要・要求する for 労働 in the aggregate' is a concoction 類似の to some of my own, depending partly on the physical and technical 条件s in 産業 (as given by his 機能（する）／行事 F) and partly on the propensity to 消費する 行う-goods (as given by his 機能（する）／行事 f); 供給するd always that we are 限界ing ourselves to the special 事例／患者 where ごくわずかの 労働-cost is equal to ごくわずかの prime cost.
To 決定する the 量 of 雇用, Professor Pigou then 連合させるs with his 'real 需要・要求する for 労働', a 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事 for 労働. He assumes that this is a 機能（する）／行事 of the real 行う and of nothing else. But, as he has also assumed that the real 行う is a 機能（する）／行事 of the number of men x who are 雇うd in the 行う-goods 産業s, this 量s to assuming that the total 供給（する） of 労働 at the 存在するing real 行う is a 機能（する）／行事 of x and of nothing else. That is to say, n = c(x), where n is the 供給（する） of 労働 利用できる at a real 行う F'(x).
Thus, （疑いを）晴らすd of all 複雑化, Professor Pigou's 分析
量s to an 試みる／企てる to discover the 容積／容量 of actual 雇用
from the equations
x + y = f(x)
and n = c(x).
But there are here three unknowns and only two equations. It
seems （疑いを）晴らす that he gets 一連の会議、交渉／完成する this difficulty by taking n = x + y.
This 量s, of course, to assuming that there is no involuntary
失業 in the strict sense, i.e. that all 労働 利用できる
at the 存在するing real 行う is in fact 雇うd. In this 事例／患者 x
has the value which 満足させるs the equation
f(x) = c(x)
and when we have thus 設立する that the value of x is equal to (say) n1, y must be equal to c(n1) - n1, and total 雇用 n is equal to (n1).
It is 価値（がある） pausing for a moment to consider what this 伴う／関わるs. It means that, if the 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事 of 労働 changes, more 労働 存在 利用できる at a given real 行う (so that n1 + dn1 is now the value of x which 満足させるs the equation f(x) = c(x)), the 需要・要求する for the 生産（高） of the 非，不，無-行う-goods 産業s is such that 雇用 in these 産業s is bound to 増加する by just the 量 which will 保存する equality between f(n1 + dn1) and c(n1 + dn1). The only other way in which it is possible for aggregate 雇用 to change is through a modification of the propensity to 購入（する） 行う-goods and 非，不，無-行う-goods それぞれ such that there is an 増加する of y …を伴ってd by a greater 減少（する） of x.
The 仮定／引き受けること that n = x + y means, of course, that 労働 is always in a position to 決定する its own real 行う. Thus, the 仮定／引き受けること that 労働 is in a position to 決定する its own real 行う, means that the 需要・要求する for the 生産（高） of the 非，不，無-行う-goods 産業s obeys the above 法律s. In other words, it is assumed that the 率 of 利益／興味 always adjusts itself to the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 in such a way as to 保存する 十分な 雇用. Without this 仮定／引き受けること Professor Pigou's 分析 breaks 負かす／撃墜する and 供給するs no means of 決定するing what the 容積／容量 of 雇用 will be. It is, indeed, strange that Professor Pigou should have supposed that he could furnish a theory of 失業 which 伴う／関わるs no 言及／関連 at all to changes in the 率 of 投資 (i.e. to changes in 雇用 in the 非，不，無-行う-goods 産業s) 予定, not to a change in the 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事 of 労働, but to changes in (e.g.) either the 率 of 利益／興味 or the 明言する／公表する of 信用／信任.
His 肩書を与える the 'Theory of 失業' is, therefore, something of a misnomer. His 調書をとる／予約する is not really 関心d with this 支配する. It is a discussion of how much 雇用 there will be, given the 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事 of 労働, when the 条件s for 十分な 雇用 are 満足させるd. The 目的 of the 概念 of the elasticity of the real 需要・要求する for 労働 in the aggregate is to show by how much 十分な 雇用 will rise or 落ちる corresponding to a given 転換 in the 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事 of 労働. Orｾalternatively and perhaps betterｾwe may regard his 調書をとる／予約する as a 非，不，無-causative 調査 into the 機能の 関係 which 決定するs what level of real 給料 will correspond to any given level of 雇用. But it is not 有能な of telling us what 決定するs the actual level of 雇用; and on the problem of involuntary 失業 it has no direct 耐えるing.
If Professor Pigou were to 否定する the 可能性 of involuntary 失業 in the sense in which I have defined it above, as, perhaps, he would, it is still difficult to see how his 分析 could be 適用するd. For his omission to discuss what 決定するs the 関係 between x and y, i.e. between 雇用 in the 行う-goods and 非，不，無-行う-goods 産業s それぞれ, still remains 致命的な.
Moreover, he agrees that within 確かな 限界s 労働 in fact often 規定するs, not for a given real 行う, but for a given money-行う. But in this 事例／患者 the 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事 of 労働 is not a 機能（する）／行事 of F'(x) alone but also of the money-price of 行う-goods;ｾwith the result that the previous 分析 breaks 負かす／撃墜する and an 付加 factor has to be introduced, without there 存在 an 付加 equation to 供給する for this 付加 unknown. The 落し穴s of a pseudo-mathematical method, which can make no 進歩 except by making everything a 機能（する）／行事 of a 選び出す／独身 variable and assuming that all the 部分的な／不平等な differentials 消える, could not be better illustrated. For it is no good to 収容する／認める later on that there are in fact other variables, and yet to proceed without re-令状ing everything that has been written up to that point. Thus if (within 限界s) it is a money-行う for which 労働 規定するs, we still have insufficient data, even if we assume that n = x + y, unless we know what 決定するs the money-price of 行う-goods. For, the money-price of 行う-goods will depend on the aggregate 量 of 雇用. Therefore we cannot say what aggregate 雇用 will be, until we know the money-price of 行う-goods; and we cannot know the money-price of 行う-goods until we know the aggregate 量 of 雇用. We are, as I have said, one equation short. Yet it might be a 一時的に 仮定／引き受けること of a rigidity of money-給料, rather than of real 給料, which would bring our theory nearest to the facts. For example, money-給料 in 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain during the 騒動 and 不確定 and wide price fluctuations of the １０年間 1924-1934 were stable within a 範囲 of 6 per cent, 反して real 給料 fluctuated by more than 20 per cent. A theory cannot （人命などを）奪う，主張する to be a general theory, unless it is applicable to the 事例／患者 where (or the 範囲 within which) money-給料 are 直す／買収する，八百長をするd, just as much as to any other 事例／患者. 政治家，政治屋s are する権利を与えるd to complain that money-給料 ought to be 高度に 柔軟な; but a 理論家 must be 用意が出来ている to 取引，協定 indifferently with either 明言する／公表する of 事件／事情／状勢s. A 科学の theory cannot 要求する the facts to 適合する to its own 仮定／引き受けることs.
When Professor Pigou comes to 取引，協定 expressly with the 影響 of a 削減 of money-給料, he again, palpably (to my mind), introduces too few data to 許す of any 限定された answer 存在 obtainable. He begins by 拒絶するing the argument (op. cit. p. 101) that, if ごくわずかの prime cost is equal to ごくわずかの 行う-cost, 非，不，無-行う-earners' incomes will be altered, when money-給料 are 減ずるd, in the same 割合 as 行う-earners', on the ground that this is only valid, if the 量 of 雇用 remains unalteredｾwhich is the very point under discussion. But he proceeds on the next page (op. cit. p. 102) to make the same mistake himself by taking as his 仮定／引き受けること that 'at the 手始め nothing has happened to 非，不，無-行う-earners money-income', which, as he has just shown, is only valid if the 量 of 雇用 does not remain unaltered-which is the very point under discussion In fact, no answer is possible, unless other factors are 含むd in our data.
The manner in which the admission, that 労働 in fact 規定するs for a given money-行う and not for a given real 行う (供給するd that the real 行う does not 落ちる below a 確かな 最小限), 影響する／感情s the 分析, can also be shown by pointing out that in this 事例／患者 the 仮定／引き受けること that more 労働 is not 利用できる except at a greater real 行う, which is 根底となる to most of the argument, breaks 負かす／撃墜する. For example, Professor Pigou 拒絶するs (op. cit. p. 75) the theory of the multiplier by assuming that the 率 of real 給料 is given, i.e. that, there 存在 already 十分な 雇用, no 付加 労働 is 来たるべき at a lower real 行う. 支配する to this 仮定／引き受けること, the argument is, of course, 訂正する. But in this passage Professor Pigou is criticising a 提案 relating to practical 政策; and it is fantastically far 除去するd from the facts to assume, at a time when 統計に基づく 失業 in 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain 越えるd 2,000,000 (i.e. when there were 2,000,000 men willing to work at the 存在するing money-行う), that any rise in the cost of living, however 穏健な, 比較して to the money-行う would 原因（となる） the 撤退 from the 労働 market of more than the 同等（の） of all these 2,000,000 men.
It is important to 強調 that the whole of Professor Pigou's 調書をとる／予約する is written on the 仮定／引き受けること that any rise in the cost of living, however 穏健な, 比較して to the money-行う will 原因（となる） the 撤退 from the 労働 market ofa number of 労働者s greater than that of all the 存在するing 失業した.
Moreover, Professor Pigou does not notice in this passage (op. cit. p. 75) that the argument, which he 前進するs against '第２位' 雇用 as a result of public 作品, is, on the same 仮定／引き受けることs, 平等に 致命的な to 増加するd '最初の／主要な' 雇用 from the same 政策. For if the real 率 of 給料 判決，裁定 in the 行う-goods 産業s is given, no 増加するd 雇用 whatever is possibleｾexcept, indeed, as a result of 非，不，無-行う-earners 減ずるing their 消費 of 行う-goods. For those newly engaged in the 最初の／主要な 雇用 will 推定では 増加する their 消費 of 行う-goods which will 減ずる the real 行う and hence (on his 仮定／引き受けることs) lead to a 撤退 of 労働 以前 雇うd どこかよそで. Yet Professor Pigou 受託するs, 明らかに, the 可能性 of 増加するd 最初の／主要な 雇用. The line between 最初の／主要な and 第２位 雇用 seems to be the 批判的な psychological point at which his good ありふれた sense 中止するs to overbear his bad theory.
The difference in the 結論s to which the above differences in 仮定／引き受けることs and in 分析 lead can be shown by the に引き続いて important passage in which Professor Pigou sums up his point of 見解（をとる）: 'With perfectly 解放する／自由な 競争 の中で workpeople and 労働 perfectly 動きやすい, the nature of the relation (i.e. between the real 行う-率s for which people 規定する and the 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 for 労働) will be very simple. There will always be at work a strong 傾向 for 行う-率s to be so 関係のある to 需要・要求する that everybody is 雇うd. Hence, in stable 条件s everyone will 現実に be 雇うd. The 関わりあい／含蓄 is that such 失業 as 存在するs at any time is 予定 wholly to the fact that changes in 需要・要求する 条件s are continually taking place and that frictional 抵抗s 妨げる the appropriate 行う 調整s from 存在 made instantaneously.'
He 結論するs (op. cit. p. 253) that 失業 is まず第一に／本来 予定 to a 行う 政策 which fails to adjust itself 十分に to changes in the real 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 for 労働. Thus Professor Pigou believes that in the long run 失業 can be cured by 行う 調整s; 反して I 持続する that the real 行う (支配する only to a 最小限 始める，決める by the ごくわずかの disutility of 雇用) is not まず第一に／本来 決定するd by '行う 調整s' (though these may have repercussions) but by the other 軍隊s of the system, some of which (in particular the relation between the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 and the 率 of 利益／興味) Professor Pigou has failed, if I am 権利, to 含む in his formal 計画／陰謀.
Finally, when Professor Pigou comes to the 'Causation of 失業' he speaks, it is true, of fluctuations in the 明言する／公表する of 需要・要求する, much as I do. But he identifies the 明言する／公表する of 需要・要求する with the Real 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 for 労働, forgetful of how 狭くする a thing the latter is on his 鮮明度／定義. For the Real 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事 for 労働 depends by 鮮明度／定義 (as we have seen above) on nothing but two factors, すなわち (1) the 関係 in any given 環境 between the total number of men 雇うd and the number who have to be 雇うd in the 行う-goods 産業s to 供給する them with what they 消費する, and (2) the 明言する／公表する of ごくわずかの 生産性 in the 行う-goods 産業s. Yet in Part V of his Theory of 失業 fluctuations in the 明言する／公表する of 'the real 需要・要求する for 労働' are given a position of importance. The 'real 需要・要求する for 労働' is regarded as a factor which is susceptible of wide short-period fluctuations (op. cit. Part V, chaps. vi.-xii.), and the suggestion seems to be that swings in 'the real 需要・要求する for 労働' are, in combination with the 失敗 of 行う 政策 to 答える／応じる sensitively to such changes, 大部分は 責任がある the 貿易（する） cycle. To the reader all this seems, at first, reasonable and familiar. For, unless he goes 支援する to the 鮮明度／定義, 'fluctuations in the real 需要・要求する for 労働' will 伝える to his mind the same sort of suggestion as I mean to 伝える by 'fluctuations in the 明言する／公表する of aggregate 需要・要求する'. But if we go 支援する to the 鮮明度／定義 of the 'real 需要・要求する for 労働', all this loses its plausibility. For we shall find that there is nothing in the world いっそう少なく likely to be 支配する to sharp short-period swings than this factor.
Professor Pigou's 'real 需要・要求する for 労働' depends, by 鮮明度／定義, on nothing but F(x), which 代表するs the physical 条件s of 生産／産物 in the 行う-goods 産業s, and (x), which 代表するs the 機能の 関係 between 雇用 in the 行う-goods 産業s and total 雇用 corresponding to any given level of the latter. It is difficult to see a 推論する／理由 why either of these 機能（する）／行事s should change, except 徐々に over a long period. Certainly there seems no 推論する／理由 to suppose that they are likely to fluctuate during a 貿易（する） cycle. For F(x) can only change slowly, and, in a technically 進歩／革新的な community, only in the 今後 direction; whilst (x) will remain stable, unless we suppose a sudden 突発／発生 of thrift in the working classes, or, more 一般に, a sudden 転換 in the propensity to 消費する. I should 推定する／予想する, therefore, that the real 需要・要求する for 労働 would remain 事実上 constant throughout a 貿易（する） cycle. I repeat that Professor Pigou has altogether omitted from his 分析 the 安定性のない factor, すなわち fluctuations in the 規模 of 投資, which is most often at the 底（に届く） of the 現象 of fluctuations in 雇用.
I have criticised at length Professor Pigou's theory of
失業 not because he seems to me to be more open to
批評 than other 経済学者s of the classical school; but
because his is the only 試みる／企てる with which I am 熟知させるd to
令状 負かす／撃墜する the classical theory of 失業 正確に. Thus
it has been 現職の on me to raise my 反対s to this theory
in the most formidable presentment in which it has been 前進するd.
一時期／支部 20
I
In 一時期／支部 3 (一時期／支部 3 ) we have defined the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事 Z = f(N), which relates the 雇用 N with the aggregate 供給（する） price of the corresponding 生産（高）. The 雇用 機能（する）／行事 only 異なるs from the aggregate 供給（する） 機能（する）／行事 in that it is, in 影響, its inverse 機能（する）／行事 and is defined ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 行う-部隊; the 反対する of the 雇用 機能（する）／行事 存在 to relate the 量 of the 効果的な 需要・要求する, 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 行う-部隊, directed to a given 会社／堅い or 産業 or to 産業 as a whole with the 量 of 雇用, the 供給（する） price of the 生産（高） of which will compare to that 量 of 効果的な 需要・要求する. Thus if an 量 of 効果的な 需要・要求する Dwr, 手段d in 行う-部隊s, directed to a 会社／堅い or 産業 calls 前へ／外へ an 量 of 雇用 Nr in that 会社／堅い or 産業, the 雇用 機能（する）／行事 is given by Nr = Fr(Dwr). Or, more 一般に, if we are する権利を与えるd to assume that Dwr is a unique 機能（する）／行事 of the total 効果的な 需要・要求する Dw, the 雇用 機能（する）／行事 is given by Nr = Fr(Dw) That is to say, Nr men will be 雇うd in 産業 r when 効果的な 需要・要求する is Dw.
We shall develop in this 一時期／支部 確かな 所有物／資産／財産s of the 雇用 機能（する）／行事. But apart from any 利益／興味 which these may have, there are two 推論する／理由s why the substitution of the 雇用 機能（する）／行事 for the ordinary 供給（する） curve is consonant with the methods and 反対するs of this 調書をとる／予約する. In the first place, it 表明するs the 関連した facts ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 部隊s to which we have decided to 制限する ourselves, without introducing any of the 部隊s which have a 疑わしい quantitative character. In the second place, it lends itself to the problems of 産業 and 生産（高） as a whole, as 際立った from the problems of a 選び出す／独身 産業 or 会社／堅い in a given 環境, more easily than does the ordinary 供給（する） curve¾for the に引き続いて 推論する／理由s.
The ordinary 需要・要求する curve for a particular 商品／必需品 is drawn on some 仮定／引き受けること as to the incomes of members of the public, and has to be re-drawn if the incomes change. In the same way the ordinary 供給（する） curve for a particular 商品／必需品 is drawn on some 仮定／引き受けること as to the 生産（高） of 産業 as a whole and is liable to change if the aggregate 生産（高） of 産業 is changed. When, therefore, we are 診察するing the 返答 of individual 産業s to changes in aggregate 雇用, we are やむを得ず 関心d, not with a 選び出す／独身 需要・要求する curve for each 産業, in 合同 with a 選び出す／独身 供給（する） curve, but with two families of such curves corresponding to different 仮定／引き受けることs as to the aggregate 雇用. In the 事例／患者 of the 雇用 機能（する）／行事, however, the 仕事 of arriving at a 機能（する）／行事 for 産業 as a whole which will 反映する changes in 雇用 as a whole is more practicable.
For let us assume (to begin with) that the propensity to 消費する is given 同様に as the other factors which we have taken as given in above, and that we are considering changes in 雇用 in 返答 to changes in the 率 of 投資. 支配する to this 仮定／引き受けること, for every level of 効果的な 需要・要求する ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s there will be a corresponding aggregate 雇用 and this 効果的な 需要・要求する will be divided in determinate 割合s between 消費 and 投資. Moreover, each level of 効果的な 需要・要求する will correspond to a given 配当 of income. It is reasonable, therefore, その上の to assume that corresponding to a given level of aggregate 効果的な 需要・要求する there is a unique 配当 of it between different 産業s.
This enables us to 決定する what 量 of 雇用 in each 産業 will correspond to a given level of aggregate 雇用. That is to say, it gives us the 量 of 雇用 in each particular 産業 corresponding to each level of aggregate 効果的な 需要・要求する 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s, so that the 条件s are 満足させるd for the second form of the 雇用 機能（する）／行事 for the 産業, defined above, すなわち Nr = Fr(Dw) Thus we have the advantage that, in these 条件s, the individual 雇用 機能（する）／行事s are additive in the sense that the 雇用 機能（する）／行事 for 産業 as a whole, corresponding to a given level of 効果的な 需要・要求する, is equal to the sum of the 雇用 機能（する）／行事s for each separate 産業; i.e.
Fr(Dw) = N = SNr = SFr(Dw).Next, let us define the elasticity of 雇用. The elasticity of 雇用 for a given 産業 is
dNr Dwrsince it 対策 the 返答 of the number of 労働-部隊s 雇うd in the 産業 to changes in the number of 行う-部隊s which are 推定する／予想するd to be spent on 購入（する）ing its 生産（高）. The elasticity of 雇用 for 産業 as a whole we shall 令状
eer = ¾¾¾¾ × ¾¾¾ ,
dDwr Nr
dN Dw供給するd that we can find some 十分に 満足な method of 手段ing 生産（高）, it is also useful to define what may be called the elasticity of 生産（高） or 生産／産物, which 対策 the 率 at which 生産（高） in any 産業 増加するs when more 効果的な 需要・要求する ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s is directed に向かって it, すなわち
ee = ¾¾¾¾ × ¾¾¾ ,
dDw Nr
dOr Dwr供給するd we can assume that the price is equal to the ごくわずかの prime cost, we then have
eor = ¾¾¾¾ × ¾¾¾ ,
dDwr Or
1where Pr is the 推定する／予想するd 利益（をあげる）. It follows from this that if eor = 0, i.e. if the 生産（高） of the 産業 is perfectly inelastic, the whole of the 増加するd 効果的な 需要・要求する (ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s) is 推定する／予想するd to accrue to the entrepreneur as 利益（をあげる）, i.e. DDwr = DPr; whilst if eor = 1, i.e. if the elasticity of 生産（高） is まとまり, no part of the 増加するd 効果的な 需要・要求する is 推定する／予想するd to accrue as 利益（をあげる）, the whole of it 存在 吸収するd by the elements entering into ごくわずかの prime cost.
DDwr = ¾¾¾¾DPr
1 - eor
Moreover, if the 生産（高） of an 産業 is a 機能（する）／行事 f(Nr)
of the 労働 雇うd in it, we have
1 - eor Nr f"(Nr)where pwr is the 推定する／予想するd price of a 部隊 of 生産（高） ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 行う-部隊. Thus the 条件 eor = 1 means that f"(Nr) = 0, i.e. that there are constant returns in 返答 to 増加するd 雇用.
¾¾¾¾ = - ¾¾¾¾¾¾¾ ,
eer pwr{f'(Nr)}2
Now, in so far as the classical theory assumes that real 給料 are always equal to the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働 and that the latter 増加するs when 雇用 増加するs, so that the 労働 供給（する） will 落ちる off; cet. par., if real 給料 are 減ずるd, it is assuming that in practice it is impossible to 増加する 支出 ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s. If this were true, the 概念 of elasticity of 雇用 would have no field of 使用／適用. Moreover, it would, in this event, be impossible to 増加する 雇用 by 増加するing 支出 ーに関して／ーの点でs of money; for money-給料 would rise proportionately to the 増加するd money 支出 so that there would be no 増加する of 支出 ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s and その結果 no 増加する in 雇用. But if the classical 仮定／引き受けること does not 持つ／拘留する good, it will be possible to 増加する 雇用 by 増加するing 支出 in 条件 of money until real 給料 have fallen to equality with the ごくわずかの disutility of 労働, at which point there will, by 鮮明度／定義, be 十分な 雇用.
Ordinarily, of course, eor will have a value 中間の between 無 and まとまり. The extent to which prices (ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s) will rise, i.e. the extent to which real 給料 will 落ちる, when money 支出 is 増加するd, depends, therefore, on the elasticity of 生産（高） in 返答 to 支出 ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s.
Let the elasticity of the 推定する／予想するd price pwr in 返答 to changes in 効果的な 需要・要求する Dwr, すなわち (dpwr/dDwr) × (Dwr /pwr), be written e'pr.
Since Or × pwr = Dwr, we have
dOr Dwr dpwr Dwror e'pr + eor = 1.
¾¾¾¾ × ¾¾¾ + ¾¾¾¾ × ¾¾¾ = 1
dDwr Or dDwr pwr
That is to say, the sum of the elasticities of price and of 生産（高） in 返答 to changes in 効果的な 需要・要求する (手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s) is equal to まとまり. 効果的な 需要・要求する spends itsell, partly in 影響する／感情ing 生産（高） and partly in 影響する／感情ing price, によれば this 法律.
If we are 取引，協定ing with 産業 as a whole and are 用意が出来ている to assume that we have a 部隊 in which 生産（高） as a whole can be 手段d, the same line of argument 適用するs, so that e'p + eo = 1, where the elasticities without a suffix r 適用する to 産業 as a whole.
Let us now 手段 values in money instead of 行う-部隊s and 延長する to this 事例／患者 our 結論s in 尊敬（する）・点 of 産業 as a whole.
If W stands for the money-給料 of a 部隊 of 労働 and p for the 推定する／予想するd price of a 部隊 of 生産（高） as a whole ーに関して／ーの点でs of money, we can 令状 ep (= (Ddp) / (pdD)) for the elasticity of money-prices in 返答 to changes in 効果的な 需要・要求する 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of money, and ew (= (DdW) / (WdD)) for the elasticity of money-給料 in 返答 to changes in 効果的な 需要・要求する ーに関して／ーの点でs of money. It is then easily shown that
ep = 1 = eo(1 -ew).
This equation is, as we shall see in the next 一時期／支部, first step to a generalised 量 theory of money.
If eo = 0 or if
ew
= 1, 生産（高） will be unaltered and prices will rise in the same 割合
as 効果的な 需要・要求する ーに関して／ーの点でs of money. さもなければ they will rise in a smaller
割合.
II
Let us return to the 雇用 機能（する）／行事. We have assumed in the foregoing that to every level or aggregate 効果的な 需要・要求する there corresponds a unique 配当 of 効果的な 需要・要求する between the 製品s of each individual 産業. Now, as aggregate 支出 changes, the corresponding 支出 on the 製品s of an individual 産業 will not, in general, change in the same 割合;¾partly because individuals will not, as their incomes rise, 増加する the 量 of the 製品s of each separate 産業, which they 購入（する）, in the same 割合, and partly because the prices of different 商品／必需品s will 答える／応じる in different degrees to 増加するs in 支出 upon them.
It follows from this that the 仮定／引き受けること upon which we have worked hitherto, that changes in 雇用 depend 単独で on changes in aggregate 効果的な 需要・要求する (ーに関して／ーの点でs of 行う-部隊s), is no better than a first approximation, if we 収容する／認める that there is more than one way in which an 増加する of income can be spent. For the way in which we suppose the 増加する in aggregate 需要・要求する to be 分配するd between different 商品／必需品s may かなり 影響（力） the 容積／容量 of 雇用. If, for example, the 増加するd 需要・要求する is 大部分は directed に向かって 製品s which have a high elasticity of 雇用, the aggregate 増加する in 雇用 will be greater than if it is 大部分は directed に向かって 製品s which have a low elasticity of 雇用.
In the same way 雇用 may 落ちる off without there having been any change in aggregate 需要・要求する, if the direction of 需要・要求する is changed in favour of 製品s having a 比較して low elasticity of 雇用.
These considerations are 特に important if we are 関心d with short-period phenomena in the sense of changes in the 量 or direction of 需要・要求する which are not foreseen some time ahead. Some 製品s take time to produce, so that it is 事実上 impossible to 増加する the 供給（する） of them quickly. Thus, if 付加 需要・要求する is directed to them without notice, they will show a low elasticity of 雇用; although it may be that, given 十分な notice, their elasticity of 雇用 approaches まとまり.
It is in this 関係 that I find the 主要な／長／主犯 significance of the conception of a period of 生産／産物. A 製品, I should prefer to say, has a period of 生産／産物 n if n time-部隊s of notice of changes in the 需要・要求する for it have to be given if it is to 申し込む／申し出 its 最大限 elasticity of 雇用. 明白に 消費-goods, taken as a whole, have in this sense the longest period of 生産／産物, since of every 生産力のある 過程 they 構成する the last 行う／開催する／段階. Thus if the first impulse に向かって the 増加する in 効果的な 需要・要求する comes from an 増加する in 消費, the 初期の elasticity of 雇用 will be その上の below its 結局の equilibrium-level than if the impulse comes from an 増加する in 投資. Moreover, if the 増加するd 需要・要求する is directed to 製品s with a 比較して low elasticity of 雇用, a larger 割合 of it will go to swell the incomes of entrepreneurs and a smaller 割合 to swell the incomes of 行う-earners and other prime-cost factors; with the possible result that the repercussions may be somewhat いっそう少なく favourable to 支出, 借りがあるing to the 見込み of entrepreneurs saving more of their increment of income than 行う-earners would. にもかかわらず the distinction between the two 事例／患者s must not be over-明言する／公表するd, since a large part of the reactions will be much the same in both.
However long the notice given to entrepreneurs of a 見込みのある change in 需要・要求する, it is not possible for the 初期の elasticity of 雇用, in 返答 to a given 増加する of 投資, to be as 広大な／多数の／重要な as its 結局の equilibrium value, unless there are 黒字／過剰 在庫／株s and 黒字／過剰 capacity at every 行う／開催する／段階 of 生産／産物. On the other 手渡す, the depletion of the 黒字／過剰 在庫／株s will have an offsetting 影響 on the 量 by which 投資 増加するs. If we suppose that there are 最初 some 黒字／過剰s at every point, the 初期の elasticity of 雇用 may approximate to まとまり; then after the 在庫／株s have been 吸収するd, but before an 増加するd 供給（する） is coming 今後 at an 適する 率 from the earlier 行う／開催する／段階s of 生産／産物, the elasticity will 落ちる away; rising again に向かって まとまり as the new position of equilibrium is approached. This is 支配する, however, to some 資格 in so far as there are rent factors which 吸収する more 支出 as 雇用 増加するs, or if the 率 of 利益／興味 増加するs. For these 推論する／理由s perfect 安定 of prices is impossible in an economy 支配する to change¾unless, indeed, there is some peculiar 機械装置 which 確実にするs 一時的な fluctuations of just the 権利 degree in the propensity to 消費する. But price-不安定 arising in this way does not lead to the 肉親，親類d of 利益（をあげる） 刺激 which is liable to bring into 存在 超過 capacity. For the windfall 伸び（る） will wholly accrue to those entrepreneurs who happen to 所有する 製品s at a 比較して 前進するd 行う／開催する／段階 of 生産／産物, and there is nothing which the entrepreneur, who does not 所有する specialised 資源s of the 権利 肉親，親類d, can do to attract this 伸び（る） to himself. Thus the 必然的な price-不安定 予定 to change cannot 影響する／感情 the 活動／戦闘s of entrepreneurs, but 単に directs a de facto windfall of wealth into the （競技場の）トラック一周s of the lucky ones (mutatis mutandis when the supposed change is in the other direction). This fact has, I think, been overlooked in some 同時代の discussions of a practical 政策 目的（とする）d at stabilising prices.
It is true that in a society liable to change such a 政策 cannot be
perfectly successful. But it does not follow that every small 一時的な
出発 from price 安定 やむを得ず 始める，決めるs up a cumulative disequilibrium.
III
We have shown that when 効果的な 需要・要求する is deficient there is under-雇用 of 労働 in the sense that there are men 失業した who would be willing to work at いっそう少なく than the 存在するing real 行う. その結果, as 効果的な 需要・要求する 増加するs, 雇用 増加するs, though at a real 行う equal to or いっそう少なく than the 存在するing one, until a point comes at which there is no 黒字／過剰 of 労働 利用できる at the then 存在するing real 行う; i.e. no more men (or hours of 労働) 利用できる unless money-給料 rise (from this point onwards) faster than prices. The next problem is to consider what will happen If, when this point has been reached, 支出 still continues to 増加する.
Up to this point the 減少（する）ing return from 適用するing more 労働 to a given 資本／首都 器具／備品 has been 相殺する by the acquiescence of 労働 in a 減らすing real 行う. But after this point a 部隊 of 労働 would 要求する the 誘導 of the 同等（の） of an 増加するd 量 of 製品, 反して the 産する／生じる from 適用するing a その上の 部隊 would be a 減らすd 量 of 製品. The 条件s of strict equilibrium 要求する, therefore, that 給料 and prices, and その結果 利益（をあげる）s also, should all rise in the same 割合 as 支出, the 'real' position, 含むing the 容積／容量 of 生産（高） and 雇用, 存在 left 不変の in all 尊敬（する）・点s. We have reached, that is to say, a 状況／情勢 in which the 天然のまま 量 theory of money (解釈する／通訳するing 'velocity' to mean 'income-velocity') is fully 満足させるd; for 生産（高） does not alter and prices rise in exact 割合 to MV.
にもかかわらず there are 確かな practical 資格s to this 結論 which must be borne in mind in 適用するing it to an actual 事例／患者:
(1) For a time at least, rising prices may delude entrepreneurs into 増加するing 雇用 beyond the level which maximises their individual 利益（をあげる）s 手段d ーに関して／ーの点でs of the 製品. For they are so accustomed to regard rising sale-proceeds ーに関して／ーの点でs of money as a signal for 拡大するing 生産／産物, that they may continue to do so when this 政策 has in fact 中止するd to be to their best advantage; i.e. they may underestimate their ごくわずかの 使用者 cost in the new price 環境.
(2) Since that part of his 利益（をあげる） which the entrepreneur has to
手渡す on to the rentier is 直す／買収する，八百長をするd ーに関して／ーの点でs of money, rising prices, even
though unaccompanied by any change in 生産（高）, will redistribute incomes
to the advantage of the entrepreneur and to the disadvantage of the rentier,
which may have a reaction on the propensity to 消費する. This, however,
is not a 過程 which will have only begun when 十分な 雇用 has been
達成するd;¾it will have been making 安定した
進歩 all the time that the 支出 was 増加するing. If the rentier
is いっそう少なく 傾向がある to spend than the entrepreneur, the 漸進的な 撤退 of
real income from the ormer will mean that 十分な 雇用 will be reached
with a smaller 増加する in the 量 of money and a smaller 削減
in the 率 of 利益／興味 than will be the 事例／患者 if the opposite hypothesis
持つ／拘留するs. After 十分な 雇用 has been reached, a その上の rise of prices
will, if the first hypothesis continues to 持つ／拘留する, mean that the 率 of
利益／興味 will have to rise somewhat to 妨げる prices from rising 無期限に／不明確に,
and that the 増加する in the 量 of money will be いっそう少なく than in 割合
to the 増加する in 支出; whilst if the second hypothesis 持つ／拘留するs,
the opposite will be the 事例／患者. It may be that, as the real income of the
rentier is 減らすd, a point will come when, as a result of his growing
親族 impoverishment, there will be a change-over from the first hypothesis
to the second, which point may be reached either before or after 十分な 雇用 has been
達成するd.
IV
There is, perhaps, something a little perplexing in the 明らかな asymmetry between インフレーション and デフレ. For whilst a デフレ of 効果的な 需要・要求する below the level 要求するd for 十分な 雇用 will 減らす 雇用 as 井戸／弁護士席 as prices, an インフレーション of it above this level will 単に 影響する／感情 prices. This asymmetry is, however, 単に a reflection of the fact that, whilst 労働 is always in a position to 辞退する to work on a 規模 伴う／関わるing a real 行う which is いっそう少なく than the ごくわずかの disutility of that 量 of 雇用, it is not in a position to 主張する on 存在 申し込む／申し出d work on a 規模 伴う／関わるing a real 行う which is not greater than the ごくわずかの disutility of that 量 of 雇用.
一時期／支部 21
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,
MdDThis gives us
ed = ¾¾¾¾
DdM
Mdpso that e = ed - (1 - ew)ed × eeeo
¾¾¾¾ = ep × ed where ep = 1 - ee × eo(1 - ew);
pdM
= 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.
一時期／支部 22
Since we （人命などを）奪う，主張する to have shown in the 先行する 一時期／支部s what 決定するs the 容積／容量 of 雇用 at any time, it follows, if we are 権利, that our theory must be 有能な of explaining the phenomena of the 貿易（する） cycle.
If we 診察する the 詳細（に述べる）s of any actual instance of the 貿易（する）
cycle, we shall find that it is 高度に コンビナート／複合体 and that every
element in our 分析 will be 要求するd for its 完全にする
explanation. In particular we shall find that fluctuations in the
propensity to 消費する, in the 明言する／公表する of liquidity-preference, and
in the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 have all played a part. But
I 示唆する that the 必須の character of the 貿易（する） cycle and,
特に, the regularity of time-sequence and of duration which
正当化するs us in calling it a cycle, is おもに 予定 to the
way in which the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 fluctuates. The
貿易（する） cycle is best regarded, I think, as 存在 occasioned by a
cyclical change in the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都, though
複雑にするd and often 悪化させるd by associated changes in the
other 重要な short-period variables of the 経済的な system.
To develop this 論題／論文 would 占領する a 調書をとる／予約する rather than a 一時期／支部,
and would 要求する a の近くに examination of facts. But the に引き続いて
short 公式文書，認めるs will be 十分な to 示す the line of
調査 which our 先行する theory 示唆するs.
I
By a cyclical movement we mean that as the system 進歩s in, e.g. the 上向き direction, the 軍隊s propelling it 上向きs at first gather 軍隊 and have a cumulative 影響 on one another but 徐々に lose their strength until at a 確かな point they tend to be 取って代わるd by 軍隊s operating in the opposite direction; which in turn gather 軍隊 for a time and accentuate one another, until they too, having reached their 最大限 開発, 病弱な and give place to their opposite. We do not, however, 単に mean by a cyclical movement that 上向き and downward 傾向s, once started, do not 固執する for ever in the same direction but are 最終的に 逆転するd. We mean also that there is some recognisable degree of regularity in the time-sequence and duration of the 上向き and downward movements.
There is, however, another characteristic of what we call the 貿易（する） cycle which our explanation must cover if it is to be 適する; すなわち, the 現象 of the 危機ｾthe fact that the substitution of a downward for an 上向き 傾向 often takes place suddenly and violently, 反して there is, as a 支配する, no such sharp turning-point when an 上向き is 代用品，人d for a downward 傾向.
Any fluctuation in 投資 not 相殺する by a
corresponding change in the propensity to 消費する will, of
course, result in a fluctuation in 雇用. Since, therefore,
the 容積／容量 of 投資 is 支配する to 高度に コンビナート／複合体 影響（力）s,
it is 高度に improbable that all fluctuations either in
投資 itself or in the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 will
be of a cyclical character. One special 事例／患者, in particular,
すなわち, that which is associated with 農業の fluctuations,
will be 分かれて considered in a later section of this 一時期／支部.
I 示唆する, however, that there are 確かな 限定された 推論する／理由s why,
in the 事例／患者 of a typical 産業の 貿易（する） cycle in the
nineteenth-century 環境, fluctuations in the ごくわずかの
efficiency of 資本／首都 should have had cyclical 特徴.
These 推論する／理由s are by no means unfamiliar either in themselves or
as explanations of the 貿易（する） cycle. My only 目的 here is to link them up with the
先行する theory.
II
I can best introduce what I have to say by beginning with the later 行う／開催する／段階s of the にわか景気 and the onset of the '危機'.
We have seen above that the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 depends, not only on the 存在するing 豊富 or scarcity of 資本／首都-goods and the 現在の cost of 生産／産物 of 資本／首都-goods, but also on 現在の 期待s as to the 未来 産する／生じる of 資本／首都-goods. In the 事例／患者 of 持続する 資産s it is, therefore, natural and reasonable that 期待s of the 未来 should play a 支配的な part in 決定するing the 規模 on which new 投資 is みなすd advisable. But, as we have seen, the basis for such 期待s is very 不安定な. 存在 based on 転換ing and unreliable 証拠, they are 支配する to sudden and violent changes.
Now, we have been accustomed in explaining the '危機' to lay 強調する／ストレス on the rising 傾向 of the 率 of 利益／興味 under the 影響（力） of the 増加するd 需要・要求する for money both for 貿易（する） and 思索的な 目的s. At times this factor may certainly play an 悪化させるing and, occasionally perhaps, an 始めるing part. But I 示唆する that a more typical, and often the predominant, explanation of the 危機 is, not まず第一に／本来 a rise in the 率 of 利益／興味, but a sudden 崩壊（する） in the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都.
The later 行う／開催する／段階s of the にわか景気 are characterised by 楽観的な 期待s as to the 未来 産する／生じる of 資本／首都-goods 十分に strong to 相殺する their growing 豊富 and their rising costs of 生産／産物 and, probably, a rise in the 率 of 利益／興味 also. It is of the nature of organised 投資 markets, under the 影響（力） of purchasers 大部分は ignorant of what they are buying and of 相場師s who are more 関心d with 予測（する）ing the next 転換 of market 感情 than with a reasonable 見積（る） of the 未来 産する／生じる of 資本／首都-資産s, that, when disillusion 落ちるs upon an over-楽観的な and over-bought market, it should 落ちる with sudden and even 壊滅的な 軍隊. Nloreover, the 狼狽 and 不確定 as to the 未来 which …を伴ってs a 崩壊（する） in the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 自然に precipitates a sharp 増加する in liquidity-preferenceｾand hence a rise in the 率 of 利益／興味. Thus the fact that a 崩壊（する） in the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 tends to be associated with a rise in the 率 of 利益／興味 may 本気で 悪化させる the 拒絶する／低下する in 投資. But the essence of the 状況／情勢 is to be 設立する, にもかかわらず, in the 崩壊（する） in the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都, 特に in the 事例／患者 of those types of 資本／首都 which have been 与える／捧げるing most to the previous 段階 of 激しい new 投資. Liquidity-preference, except those manifestations of it which are associated with 増加するing 貿易（する） and 憶測, does not 増加する until after the 崩壊（する） in the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都.
It is this, indeed, which （判決などを）下すs the 低迷 so intractable. Later on, a 拒絶する／低下する in the 率 of 利益／興味 will be a 広大な／多数の／重要な 援助（する） to 回復 and, probably, a necessary 条件 of it. But, for the moment, the 崩壊（する） in the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 may be so 完全にする that no practicable 削減 in the 率 of 利益／興味 will be enough. If a 削減 in the 率 of 利益／興味 was 有能な of 証明するing an 効果的な 治療（薬） by itself; it might be possible to 達成する a 回復 without the elapse of any かなりの interval of time and by means more or いっそう少なく 直接／まっすぐに under the 支配（する）／統制する of the 通貨の 当局. But, in fact, this is not usually the 事例／患者; and it is not so 平易な to 生き返らせる the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都, 決定するd, as it is, by the uncontrollable and disobedient psychology of the 商売／仕事 world. It is the return of 信用／信任, to speak in ordinary language, which is so insusceptible to 支配（する）／統制する in an economy of individualistic capitalism. This is the 面 of the 低迷 which 銀行業者s and 商売／仕事 men have been 権利 in 強調ing, and which the 経済学者s who have put their 約束 in a '純粋に 通貨の' 治療（薬） have underestimated.
This brings me to my point. The explanation of the time-element in the 貿易（する） cycle, of the fact that an interval of time of a particular order of magnitude must usually elapse before 回復 begins, is to be sought in the 影響（力）s which 治める／統治する the 回復 of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都. There are 推論する／理由s, given firstly by the length of life of 持続する 資産s in relation to the normal 率 of growth in a given 時代, and secondly by the carrying-costs of 黒字／過剰 在庫／株s, why the duration of the downward movement should have an order of magnitude which is not fortuitous, which does not fluctuate between, say, one year this time and ten years next time, but which shows some regularity of habit between, let us say, three and five years.
Let us recur to what happens at the 危機. So long as the にわか景気 was continuing, much of the new 投資 showed a not unsatisfactory 現在の 産する／生じる. The disillusion comes because 疑問s suddenly arise 関心ing the reliability of the 見込みのある 産する／生じる, perhaps because the 現在の 産する／生じる shows 調印するs of 落ちるing off, as the 在庫／株 of newly produced 持続する goods 刻々と 増加するs. If 現在の costs of 生産／産物 are thought to be higher than they will be later on, that will be a その上の 推論する／理由 for a 落ちる in the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都. Once 疑問 begins it spreads 速く. Thus at the 手始め of the 低迷 there is probably much 資本／首都 of which the ごくわずかの efficiency has become ごくわずかの or even 消極的な. But the interval of time, which will have to elapse before the 不足 of 資本／首都 through use, decay and obsolescence 原因（となる）s a 十分に obvious scarcity to 増加する the ごくわずかの efficiency, may be a somewhat stable 機能（する）／行事 of the 普通の／平均（する） durability of 資本／首都 in a given 時代. If the 特徴 of the 時代 転換, the 基準 time-interval will change. If, for example, we pass from a period of 増加するing 全住民 into one of 拒絶する／低下するing 全住民, the characteristic 段階 of the cycle will be lengthened. But we have in the above a 相当な 推論する／理由 why the duration of the 低迷 should have a 限定された 関係 to the length of life of 持続する 資産s and to the normal 率 of growth in a given 時代.
The second stable time-factor is 予定 to the carrying-costs of 黒字／過剰 在庫／株s which 軍隊 their absorption within a 確かな period, neither very short nor very long. The sudden 停止 of new 投資 after the 危機 will probably lead to an accumulation of 黒字／過剰 在庫／株s of unfinished goods. The carrying-costs of these 在庫／株s will seldom be いっそう少なく than 10 per cent. per 年. Thus the 落ちる in their price needs to be 十分な to bring about a 制限 which 供給するs for their absorption within a period of; say, three to five years at the outside. Now the 過程 of 吸収するing the 在庫／株s 代表するs 消極的な 投資, which is a その上の deterrent to 雇用; and, when it is over, a manifest 救済 will be experienced. Moreover, the 削減 in working 資本／首都, which is やむを得ず attendant on the 拒絶する／低下する in 生産（高） on the downward 段階, 代表するs a その上の element of disinvestment, which may be large; and, once the 後退，不況 has begun, this 発揮するs a strong cumulative 影響（力） in the downward direction. In the earliest 段階 of a typical 低迷 there will probably be an 投資 in 増加するing 在庫／株s which helps to 相殺する disinvestment in working-資本／首都; in the next 段階 there may be a short period of disinvestment both in 在庫／株s and in working-資本／首都; after the lowest point has been passed there is likely to be a その上の disinvestment in 在庫／株s which 部分的に／不公平に 相殺するs reinvestment in working-資本／首都; and, finally, after the 回復 is 井戸／弁護士席 on its way, both factors will be 同時に favourable to 投資. It is against this background that the 付加 and superimposed 影響s of fluctuations of 投資 in 持続する goods must be 診察するd. When a 拒絶する／低下する in this type of 投資 has 始める，決める a cyclical fluctuation in 動議 there will be little 激励 to a 回復 in such 投資 until the cycle has partly run its course.
Unfortunately a serious 落ちる in the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 also tends to 影響する／感情 逆に the propensity to 消費する. For it 伴う／関わるs a 厳しい 拒絶する／低下する in the market value of 在庫／株 交流 公正，普通株主権s. Now, on the class who take an active 利益／興味 in their 在庫／株 交流 投資s, 特に if they are 雇うing borrowed 基金s, this 自然に 発揮するs a very depressing 影響（力）. These people are, perhaps, even more 影響（力）d in their 準備完了 to spend by rises and 落ちるs in the value of their 投資s than by the 明言する／公表する of their incomes. With a '在庫／株-minded' public as in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs to-day, a rising 在庫／株-market may be an almost 必須の 条件 of a 満足な propensity to 消費する; and this circumstance, 一般に overlooked until lately, 明白に serves to 悪化させる still その上の the depressing 影響 of a 拒絶する／低下する in the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都.
When once the 回復 has been started, the manner in which
it 料金d on itself and cumulates is obvious. But during the
downward 段階, when both 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 資本／首都 and 在庫／株s of 構成要素s
are for the time 存在 redundant and working-資本／首都 is 存在
減ずるd, the schedule of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 may
落ちる so low that it can scarcely be 訂正するd, so as to 安全な・保証する a 満足な 率 of new 投資, by any
practicable 削減 in the 率 of 利益／興味. Thus with markets
organised and 影響（力）d as they are at 現在の, the market
estimation of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 may 苦しむ such
enormously wide fluctuations that it cannot be 十分に
相殺する by corresponding fluctuations in the 率 of 利益／興味.
Moreover, the corresponding movements in the 在庫／株-market may, as
we have seen above, depress the propensity to 消費する just wlaen
it is most needed. In 条件s of laissez-faire the
avoidance of wide fluctuations in 雇用 may, therefore,
証明する impossible without a far-reaching change in the psychology
of 投資 markets such as there is no 推論する／理由 to 推定する／予想する. I
結論する that the 義務 of ordering the 現在の 容積／容量 of
投資 cannot 安全に be left in 私的な 手渡すs.
III
The 先行する 分析 may appear to be in 順応／服従 with the 見解（をとる） of those who 持つ／拘留する that over-投資 is the characteristic of the にわか景気, that the avoidance of this over-投資 is the only possible 治療（薬） for the 続いて起こるing 低迷, and that, whilst for the 推論する／理由s given above the 低迷 cannot be 妨げるd by a low 率 of 利益／興味, にもかかわらず the にわか景気 can be 避けるd by a high 率 of 利益／興味. There is, indeed, 軍隊 in the argument that a high 率 of 利益／興味 is much more 効果的な against a にわか景気 than a low 率 of 利益／興味 against a 低迷.
To infer these 結論s from the above would, however, misinterpret my 分析; and would, によれば my way of thinking, 伴う／関わる serious error. For the 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 over-投資 is あいまいな. It may 言及する to 投資s which are 運命にあるd to disappoint the 期待s which 誘発するd them or for which there is no use in 条件s of 厳しい 失業, or it may 示す a 明言する／公表する of 事件／事情／状勢s where every 肉親，親類d of 資本／首都-goods is so abundant that there is no new 投資 which is 推定する／予想するd, even in 条件s of 十分な 雇用, to earn in the course of its life more than its 交替／補充 cost. It is only the latter 明言する／公表する of 事件／事情／状勢s which is one of over-投資, 厳密に speaking, in the sense that any その上の 投資 would be a sheer waste of 資源s. Moreover, even if over-投資 in this sense was a normal characteristic of the にわか景気, the 治療（薬） would not 嘘（をつく） in clapping on a high 率 of 利益／興味 which would probably 阻止する some useful 投資s and might その上の 減らす the propensity to 消費する, but in taking 激烈な steps, by redistributing incomes or さもなければ, to 刺激する the propensity to 消費する.
によれば my 分析, however, it is only in the former sense that the にわか景気 can be said to be characterised by over-投資. The 状況／情勢, which I am 示すing as typical, is not one in which 資本／首都 is so abundant that the community as a whole has no reasonable use for any more, but where 投資 is 存在 made in 条件s which are 安定性のない and cannot 耐える, because it is 誘発するd by 期待s which are 運命にあるd to 失望.
It may, of course, be the 事例／患者ｾindeed it is likely to beｾthat the illusions of the にわか景気 原因（となる） particular types of 資本／首都-資産s to be produced in such 過度の 豊富 that some part of the 生産（高） is, on any criterion, a waste of 資源s;ｾwhich いつかs happens, we may 追加する, even when there is no にわか景気. It leads, that is to say, to misdirected 投資. But over and above this it is an 必須の characteristic of the にわか景気 that 投資s which will in fact 産する／生じる, say, 2 per cent in 条件s of 十分な 雇用 are made in the 期待 of a 産する／生じる of; say, 6 per cent, and are valued accordingly. When the disillusion comes, this 期待 is 取って代わるd by a contrary 'error of 悲観論主義', with the result that the 投資s, which would in fact 産する／生じる 2 per cent in 条件s of 十分な 雇用, are 推定する／予想するd to 産する／生じる いっそう少なく than nothing; and the resulting 崩壊（する） of new 投資 then leads to a 明言する／公表する of 失業 in which the 投資s, which would have 産する／生じるd 2 per cent in 条件s of 十分な 雇用, in fact 産する／生じる いっそう少なく than nothing. We reach a 条件 where there is a 不足 of houses, but where にもかかわらず no one can afford to live in the houses that there are.
Thus the 治療（薬） for the にわか景気 is not a higher 率 of 利益／興味 but a lower 率 of 利益／興味! For that may enable the いわゆる にわか景気 to last. The 権利 治療（薬） for the 貿易（する） cycle is not to be 設立する in 廃止するing にわか景気s and thus keeping us 永久的に in a 半分-低迷; but in 廃止するing 低迷s and thus keeping us 永久的に in a quasi-にわか景気.
The にわか景気 which is 運命にあるd to end in a 低迷 is 原因（となる）d, therefore, by the combination of a 率 of 利益／興味, which in a 訂正する 明言する／公表する of 期待 would be too high for 十分な 雇用, with a misguided 明言する／公表する of 期待 which, so long as it lasts, 妨げるs this 率 of 利益／興味 from 存在 in fact deterrent. A にわか景気 is a 状況／情勢 in which over-楽観主義 勝利s over a 率 of 利益／興味 which, in a cooler light, would be seen to be 過度の.
Except during the war, I 疑問 if we have any 最近の experience of a にわか景気 so strong that it led to 十分な 雇用. In the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs 雇用 was very 満足な in 1928-29 on normal 基準s; but I have seen no 証拠 of a 不足 of 労働, except, perhaps, in the 事例／患者 of a few groups of 高度に specialised 労働者s. Some '瓶／封じ込める-necks' were reached, but 生産（高） as a whole was still 有能な of その上の 拡大. Nor was there over-投資 in the sense that the 基準 and 器具／備品 of 住宅 was so high that everyone, assuming 十分な 雇用, had all he 手配中の，お尋ね者 at a 率 which would no more than cover the 交替／補充 cost, without any allowance for 利益／興味, over the life of the house; and that 輸送（する）, public services and 農業の 改良 had been carried to a point where その上の 新規加入s could not reasonably be 推定する／予想するd to 産する／生じる even their 交替／補充 cost. やめる the contrary. It would be absurd to 主張する of the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs in 1929 the 存在 of over-投資 in the strict sense. The true 明言する／公表する of 事件／事情／状勢s was of a different character. New 投資 during the previous five years had been, indeed, on so enormous a 規模 in the aggregate that the 見込みのある 産する／生じる of その上の 新規加入s was, coolly considered, 落ちるing 速く. 訂正する foresight would have brought 負かす／撃墜する the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 to an 前例なく low 人物／姿／数字; so that the 'にわか景気' could not have continued on a sound basis except with a very low long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 率 of 利益／興味, and an avoidance of misdirected 投資 in the particular directions which were in danger of 存在 over-偉業／利用するd. In fact, the 率 of 利益／興味 was high enough to 阻止する new 投資 except in those particular directions which were under the 影響（力） of 思索的な excitement and, therefore, in special danger of 存在 over-偉業／利用するd; and a 率 of 利益／興味, high enough to 打ち勝つ the 思索的な excitement, would have checked, at the same time, every 肉親，親類d of reasonable new 投資. Thus an 増加する in the 率 of 利益／興味, as a 治療（薬） for the 明言する／公表する of 事件／事情／状勢s arising out of a 長引かせるd period of abnormally 激しい new 投資, belongs to the 種類 of 治療（薬） which cures the 病気 by 殺人，大当り the 患者.
It is, indeed, very possible that the prolongation of だいたい 十分な 雇用 over a period of years would be associated in countries so 豊富な as 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain or the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs with a 容積／容量 of new 投資, assuming the 存在するing propensity to 消費する, so 広大な／多数の／重要な that it would 結局 lead to a 明言する／公表する of 十分な 投資 in the sense that an aggregate 甚だしい／１２ダース 産する／生じる in 超過 of 交替／補充 cost could no longer be 推定する／予想するd on a reasonable 計算／見積り from a その上の increment of 持続する goods of any type whatever. Moreover, this 状況／情勢 might be reached comparatively soonｾsay within twenty-five years or いっそう少なく. I must not be taken to 否定する this, because I 主張する that a 明言する／公表する of 十分な 投資 in the strict sense has never yet occurred, not even momentarily.
その上に, even if we were to suppose that 同時代の
にわか景気s are apt to be associated with a momentary 条件 of 十分な
投資 or over-投資 in the strict sense, it would still
be absurd to regard a higher 率 of 利益／興味 as the appropriate
治療（薬）. For in this event the 事例／患者 of those who せいにする the
病気 to under-消費 would be wholly 設立するd. The
治療（薬） would 嘘（をつく） in さまざまな 対策 designed to 増加する the
propensity to 消費する by the 議席数是正 of incomes or
さもなければ; so that a given level of 雇用 would 要求する a
smaller 容積／容量 of 現在の 投資 to support it.
IV
It may be convenient at this point to say a word about the important schools of thought which 持続する, from さまざまな points of 見解（をとる）, that the chronic 傾向 of 同時代の societies to under-雇用 is to be traced to under-消費;ｾthat is to say, to social practices and to a 配当 of wealth which result in a propensity to 消費する which is unduly low.
In 存在するing 条件sｾor, at least, in the 条件 which 存在するd until latelyｾwhere the 容積／容量 of 投資 is unplanned and uncontrolled, 支配する to the vagaries of the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都 as 決定するd by the 私的な judgment of individuals ignorant or 思索的な, and to a long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 率 of 利益／興味 which seldom or never 落ちるs below a 従来の level, these schools of thought are, as guides to practical 政策, undoubtedly in the 権利. For in such 条件s there is no other means of raising the 普通の／平均（する） level of 雇用 to a more 満足な level. If it is impracticable materially to 増加する 投資, 明白に there is no means of 安全な・保証するing a higher level of 雇用 except by 増加するing 消費.
事実上 I only 異なる from these schools of thought in thinking that they may lay a little too much 強調 on 増加するd 消費 at a time when there is still much social advantage to be 得るd from 増加するd 投資. Theoretically, however, they are open to the 批評 of neglecting the fact that there are two ways to 拡大する 生産（高）. Even if we were to decide that it would be better to 増加する 資本／首都 more slowly and to concentrate 成果／努力 on 増加するing 消費, we must decide this with open 注目する，もくろむs after 井戸／弁護士席 considering the 代案／選択肢. I am myself impressed by the 広大な／多数の／重要な social advantages of 増加するing the 在庫／株 of 資本／首都 until it 中止するs to be 不十分な. But this is a practical judgment, not a theoretical imperative.
Moreover, I should readily 譲歩する that the wisest course is
to 前進する on both 前線s at once. Whilst 目的（とする）ing at a socially
controlled 率 of 投資 with a 見解（をとる） to a 進歩／革新的な
拒絶する／低下する in the ごくわずかの efficiency of 資本／首都, I should support
at the same time all sorts of 政策s for 増加するing the
propensity to 消費する. For it is ありそうもない that 十分な 雇用
can be 持続するd, whatever we may do about 投資, with the
存在するing propensity to 消費する. There is room, therefore, for
both 政策s to operate together;ｾto
促進する 投資 and, at the same time, to 促進する 消費,
not 単に to the level which with the 存在するing propensity to
消費する would correspond to the 増加するd 投資, but to a
higher level still. Ifｾto take 一連の会議、交渉／完成する
人物／姿／数字s for the 目的 of illustrationｾthe 普通の／平均（する） level of
生産（高） of to-day is 15 per cent below what it would be with
continuous 十分な 雇用, and if 10 per cent of this 生産（高）
代表するs 逮捕する 投資 and 90 per cent of it 消費ｾif, その上に, 逮捕する 投資 would have
to rise 50 per cent ーするために 安全な・保証する 十分な 雇用 with the
存在するing propensity to 消費する, so that with 十分な 雇用
生産（高） would rise from 100 to 115, 消費 from 90 to 100 and
逮捕する 投資 from 10 to 15:ｾthen we
might 目的（とする）, perhaps, at so 修正するing the propensity to 消費する
that with 十分な 雇用 消費 would rise from 90 to 103
and 逮捕する 投資 from 10 to 12.
V
Another school of thought finds the 解答 of the 貿易（する） cycle, not in 増加するing either 消費 or 投資, but in 減らすing the 供給（する） of 労働 捜し出すing 雇用; i.e. by redistributing the 存在するing 容積／容量 of 雇用 without 増加するing 雇用 or 生産（高）.
This seems to me to be a premature 政策ｾmuch
more 明確に so than the 計画（する） of 増加するing 消費. A point
comes where every individual 重さを計るs the advantages of 増加するd
leisure against 増加するd income. But at 現在の the 証拠 is,
I think, strong that the 広大な／多数の／重要な 大多数 of individuals would
prefer 増加するd income to 増加するd leisure; and I see no
十分な 推論する／理由 for 説得力のある those who would prefer more
income to enjoy more leisure.
VI
It may appear 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の that a school of thought should 存在する which finds the 解答 for the 貿易（する） cycle in checking the にわか景気 in its 早期に 行う／開催する／段階s by a higher 率 of 利益／興味. The only line of argument, along which any justification for this 政策 can be discovered, is that put 今後 by Mr D. H. Robertson, who assumes, in 影響, that 十分な 雇用 is an impracticable ideal and that the best that we can hope for is a level of 雇用 much more stable than at 現在の and 普通の／平均（する）ing, perhaps, a little higher.
If we 支配する out major changes of 政策 影響する／感情ing either the 支配（する）／統制する of 投資 or the propensity to 消費する, and assume, 概して speaking, a continuance of the 存在するing 明言する／公表する of 事件／事情／状勢s, it is, I think, arguable that a more advantageous 普通の／平均（する） 明言する／公表する of 期待 might result from a banking 政策 which always nipped in the bud an incipient にわか景気 by a 率 of 利益／興味 high enough to 阻止する even the most misguided 楽天主義者s. The 失望 of 期待, characteristic of the 低迷, may lead to so much loss and waste that the 普通の／平均（する） level of useful 投資 might be higher if a deterrent is 適用するd. It is difficult to be sure whether or not this is 訂正する on its own 仮定／引き受けることs; it is a 事柄 for practical judgment where 詳細（に述べる）d 証拠 is wanting. It may be that it overlooks the social advantage which accrues from the 増加するd 消費 which …に出席するs even on 投資 which 証明するs to have been 全く misdirected, so that even such 投資 may be more 有益な than no 投資 at all. にもかかわらず, the most enlightened 通貨の 支配（する）／統制する might find itself in difficulties, 直面するd with a にわか景気 of the 1929 type in America, and 武装した with no other 武器s than those 所有するd at that time by the 連邦の Reserve System; and 非，不，無 of the 代案／選択肢s within its 力／強力にする might make much difference to the result. However this may be, such an 見通し seems to me to be 危険に and unnecessarily defeatist. It recommends, or at least assumes, for 永久の 受託 too much that is 欠陥のある in our 存在するing 経済的な 計画／陰謀.
The 厳格な，質素な 見解（をとる）, which would 雇う a high 率 of 利益／興味 to check at once any 傾向 in the level of 雇用 to rise appreciably above the 普通の／平均（する） of; say, the previous １０年間, is, however, more usually supported by arguments which have no 創立／基礎 at all apart from 混乱 of mind. It flows, in some 事例／患者s, from the belief that in a にわか景気 投資 tends to outrun saving, and that a higher 率 of 利益／興味 will 回復する equilibrium by checking 投資 on the one 手渡す and 刺激するing 貯金 on the other. This 暗示するs that saving and 投資 can be unequal, and has, therefore, no meaning until these 条件 have been defined in some special sense. Or it is いつかs 示唆するd that the 増加するd saving which …を伴ってs 増加するd 投資 is 望ましくない and 不正な because it is, as a 支配する, also associated with rising prices. But if this were so, any 上向き change in the 存在するing level of 生産（高） and 雇用 is to be deprecated. For the rise in prices is not essentially 予定 to the 増加する in 投資;ｾit is 予定 to the fact that in the short period 供給（する） price usually 増加するs with 増加するing 生産（高）, on account either of the physical fact of 減らすing return or of the 傾向 of the cost-部隊 to rise in 条件 of money when 生産（高） 増加するs. If the 条件s were those of constant 供給（する）-price, there would, of course, be no rise of prices; yet, all the same, 増加するd saving would …を伴って 増加するd 投資. It is the 増加するd 生産（高） which produces the 増加するd saving; and the rise of prices is 単に a by-製品 of the 増加するd 生産（高）, which will occur 平等に if there is no 増加するd saving but, instead, an 増加するd propensity to 消費する. No one has a 合法的 vested 利益／興味 in 存在 able to buy at prices which are only low because 生産（高） is low.
Or, again, the evil is supposed to creep in if the 増加するd
投資 has been 促進するd by a 落ちる in the 率 of 利益／興味
engineered by an 増加する in the 量 of money. Yet there is
no special virtue in the pre-存在するing 率 of 利益／興味, and the
new money is not '軍隊d' on anyone;ｾit
is created ーするために 満足させる the 増加するd liquidity-preference
which corresponds to the lower 率 of 利益／興味 or the 増加するd 容積／容量
of 処理／取引s, and it is held by those individuals who prefer
to 持つ／拘留する money rather than to lend it at the lower 率 of
利益／興味. Or, once more, it is 示唆するd that a にわか景気 is
characterised by '資本／首都 消費', which 推定では means
消極的な 逮捕する 投資, i.e. by an 過度の propensity to
消費する. Unless the phenomena of the 貿易（する） cycle have been
混乱させるd with those of a flight from the 通貨 such as
occurred during the 戦後の European 通貨 崩壊（する）s, the
証拠 is wholly to the contrary. Moreover, even if it were so,
a 削減 in the 率 of 利益／興味 would be a more plausible
治療（薬） than a rise in the 率 of 利益／興味 for 条件s of
under-投資. I can make no sense at all of these schools of
thought; except, perhaps, by 供給（する）ing a tacit 仮定／引き受けること that
aggregate 生産（高） is incapable of change. But a theory which
assumes constant 生産（高） is 明白に not very serviceable for
explaining the 貿易（する） cycle.
VII
In the earlier 熟考する／考慮するs of the 貿易（する） cycle, 顕著に by J evons, an explanation was 設立する in 農業の fluctuations 予定 to the seasons, rather than in the phenomena of 産業. In the light of the above theory this appears as an 極端に plausible approach to the problem. For even to-day fluctuation in the 在庫／株s of 農業の 製品s as between one year and another is one of the largest individual items amongst the 原因（となる）s of changes in the 率 of 現在の 投資; whilst at the time when Jevons wroteｾand more 特に over the period to which most of his 統計（学） 適用するdｾthis factor must have far outweighed all others. Jevons's theory, that the 貿易（する） cycle was まず第一に／本来 予定 to the fluctuations in the bounty of the 収穫, can be re-明言する／公表するd as follows. When an exceptionally large 収穫 is gathered in, an important 新規加入 is usually made to the 量 carried over into later years. The proceeds of this 新規加入 are 追加するd to the 現在の incomes of the 農業者s and are 扱う／治療するd by them as income; 反して the 増加するd carry-over 伴う／関わるs no drain on the income-支出 of other sections of the community but is 財政／金融d out of 貯金. That is to say, the 新規加入 to the carry-over is an 新規加入 to 現在の 投資. This 結論 is not 無効にするd even if prices 落ちる はっきりと. 類似して when there is a poor 収穫, the carry-over is drawn upon for 現在の 消費, so that a corresponding part of the income-支出 of the 消費者s creates no 現在の income for the 農業者s. That is to say, what is taken from the carry-over 伴う／関わるs a corresponding 削減 in 現在の 投資. Thus, if 投資 in other directions is taken to be constant, the difference in aggregate 投資 between a year in which there is a 相当な 新規加入 to the carry-over and a year in which there is a 相当な subtraction from it may be large; and in a community where 農業 is the predominant 産業 it will be 圧倒的に large compared with any other usual 原因（となる） of 投資 fluctuations. Thus it is natural that we should find the 上向き turning-point to be 示すd by bountiful 収穫s and the downward turning-point by deficient 収穫s. The その上の theory, that there are physical 原因（となる）s for a 正規の／正選手 cycle of good and bad 収穫s, is, of course, a different 事柄 with which we are not 関心d here.
More recently, the theory has been 前進するd that it is bad
収穫s, not good 収穫s, which are good for 貿易（する）, either
because bad 収穫s make the 全住民 ready to work for a
smaller real reward or because the resulting 議席数是正 of
購入（する）ing-力／強力にする is held to be favourable to 消費.
Needless to say, it is not these theories which I have in mind in
the above description of 収穫 phenomena as an explanation of
the 貿易（する） cycle.
The 農業の 原因（となる）s of fluctuation are, however, much いっそう少なく important in the modern world for two 推論する／理由s. In the first place 農業の 生産（高） is a much smaller 割合 of total 生産（高）. And in the second place the 開発 of a world market for most 農業の 製品s, 製図／抽選 upon both 半球s, leads to an 普通の／平均（する）ing out of the 影響s of good and bad seasons, the 百分率 fluctuation in the 量 of the world 収穫 存在 far いっそう少なく than the 百分率 fluctuations in the 収穫s of individual countries. But in old days, when a country was おもに 扶養家族 on its own 収穫, it is difficult to see any possible 原因（となる） of fluctuations in 投資, except war, which was in any way 類似の in magnitude with changes in the carry-over of 農業の 製品s.
Even to-day it is important to 支払う／賃金 の近くに attention to the part played by changes in the 在庫／株s of raw 構成要素s, both 農業の and mineral, in the 決意 of the 率 of 現在の 投資. I should せいにする the slow 率 of 回復 from a 低迷, after the turning-point has been reached, おもに to the deflationary 影響 of the 削減 of redundant 在庫／株s to a normal level. At first the accumulation of 在庫／株s, which occurs after the にわか景気 has broken, 穏健なs the 率 of the 崩壊（する）; but we have to 支払う／賃金 for this 救済 later on in the damping-負かす／撃墜する of the その後の 率 of 回復. いつかs, indeed, the 削減 of 在庫／株s may have to be 事実上 完全にするd before any measurable degree of 回復 can be （悪事，秘密などを）発見するd. For a 率 of 投資 in other directions, which is 十分な to produce an 上向き movement when there is no 現在の disinvestment in 在庫／株s to 始める，決める off against it, may be やめる 不十分な so long as such disinvestment is still 訴訟／進行.
We have seen, I think, a signal example of this in the earlier 段階s of America's 'New 取引，協定'. When 大統領 Roosevelt's 相当な 貸付金 支出 began, 在庫／株s of all 肉親，親類dｾand 特に of 農業の 製品sｾstill stood at a very high level. The 'New 取引，協定' partly consisted in a strenuous 試みる／企てる to 減ずる these 在庫／株sｾby curtailment of 現在の 生産（高） and in all sorts of ways. The 削減 of 在庫／株s to a normal level was a necessary 過程ｾa 段階 which had to be 耐えるd. But so long as it lasted, すなわち, about two years, it 構成するd a 相当な 相殺する to the 貸付金 支出 which was 存在 incurred in other directions. Only when it had been 完全にするd was the way 用意が出来ている for 相当な 回復.
最近の American experience has also afforded good examples of
the part played by fluctuations in the 在庫／株s of finished and
unfinished goodsｾ'在庫s' as it
is becoming usual to call themｾin
原因（となる）ing the minor oscillations within the main movement of the
貿易（する） cycle. 製造業者s, setting 産業 in 動議 to 供給する
for a 規模 of 消費 which is 推定する／予想するd to 勝つ／広く一帯に広がる some
months later, are apt to make minor miscalculations, 一般に in
the direction of running a little ahead of the facts. When they
discover their mistake they have to 契約 for a short time to
a level below that of 現在の 消費 so as to 許す for the
absorption of the 超過 在庫s; and the difference of pace
between running a little ahead and dropping 支援する again has 証明するd
十分な in its 影響 on the 現在の 率 of 投資 to
陳列する，発揮する itself やめる 明確に against the background of the
excellently 完全にする 統計（学） now 利用できる in the 部隊d
明言する／公表するs.
一時期／支部 23
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.
to me to be the most 直接／まっすぐに …に反対するd to just theory, and the most uniformly 否定するd by experience. Yet it 直接／まっすぐに follows from the new doctrine, that 商品／必需品s are to be considered only in their relation to each other,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.
一時期／支部 24
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.
PRINTING ERRORS IN THE FIRST EDITION CORRECTED IN THE PRESENT
EDITION
| Page | Line | 是正 | |
| [ 一時期／支部 6 ] | 6 | For '所有／入手' read '所有／入手s' | |
| [ 一時期／支部 7 ] | 12 | For 'has' read 'had' | |
| [ 一時期／支部 10 ] | 13 | For '23' read '19' | |
| [ 一時期／支部 10 ] | footnote I, line 2 | For 'th' read 'the' | |
| [ 一時期／支部 13 ] | 21 | For '安全' read '予防の' | |
| [ 一時期／支部 16 ] | 9 | For 'than' read 'that' | |
| [ 一時期／支部 17 ] | 32 | For '生産（高）' read 'the 在庫／株 of 資産s in general' | |
| [ 一時期／支部 17 ] | 25 | For 'their' read 'its' | |
| [ 一時期／支部 17 ] | 31 | For 'or' read 'of' | |
| [ 一時期／支部 19 ] | 28 | For 'three' read 'four' | |
| [ 一時期／支部 19 ] | 4 | For 'technique' read 'techniques' | |
| [ 一時期／支部 22 ] | 23 | For 'income' read 'incomes' | |
| [ 一時期／支部 23 ] | 7 | For 'Mercantilist' read 'Mercantilists' |
These 是正s come to light in 準備するing さまざまな foreign
版s of The General Theory, in 準備するing the variorum
見解／翻訳／版 of earlier 草案s which appears in 容積／容量 XIV, or in
setting this 調書をとる／予約する for 圧力（をかける）. The 是正s do not cover more
相当な errors such as the unsatisfactory 贈呈 of
aggregate 供給（する） and 需要・要求する on 一時期／支部 3 or the 不十分な derivation of the equations on 一時期／支部 21.
From The 経済的な 定期刊行物, September 1936
FLUCTUATIONS IN NET INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES
In my General Theory of 雇用, 利益／興味 and Money, 一時期／支部 8, I made a 簡潔な／要約する 試みる／企てる to illustrate the wide 範囲 of fluctuations in 逮捕する 投資, basing myself on 確かな 計算／見積りs by Mr Colin Clark for 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain and by Mr Kuznets for the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs.
In the 事例／患者 of Mr Kuznets' 人物／姿／数字s I pointed out (一時期／支部 8) that his allowances for 価値低下, etc., 含むd 'no deduction at all in 尊敬（する）・点 of houses and other 持続する 商品／必需品s in the 手渡すs of individuals'. But the （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する which すぐに followed this did not make it 十分に （疑いを）晴らす to the reader that the first line relating to '甚だしい／１２ダース 資本／首都 形式' 構成するd much wider 部類s of 資本／首都 goods than the second line relating to entrepreneurs' 価値低下, etc.'; and I was myself misled on the next page, where I 表明するd 疑問s as to the 十分なこと of the latter item in relation to the former (forgetting that the latter 関係のある only to a part of the former). The result was that the （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する as printed かなり under-明言する／公表するd the 軍隊 of the 現象 which I was 関心d to 述べる, since a 完全にする 計算／見積り in 尊敬（する）・点 of 価値低下, etc., covering all the items in the first line of the （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する, would lead to much larger 人物／姿／数字s than those given in the second line. Some correspondence with Mr Kuznets now enables me to explain these important 人物／姿／数字s more fully and 明確に, and in the light of later （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状）.
Mr Kuznets divides his aggregate of 甚だしい／１２ダース 資本／首都 形式 (as he calls it) for the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs into a number of 部類s as follows:
(1) 消費者s' 持続する 商品／必需品s
These 構成する モーター-cars, furniture and house 器具／備品 and other more or いっそう少なく 持続する articles, apart from houses, 購入（する）d and owned by those who 消費する them. Whether or not these items should be 含むd in 投資 depends (so far as the 鮮明度／定義 is 関心d) on whether the 支出 on them when it is 最初 made is 含むd in 現在の saving or in 現在の 支出; and it depends (so far as the practical 使用／適用 is 関心d) on whether in その後の years the owners feel under a 動機 to make 準備／条項 for 現在の 価値低下 out of their incomes even when they are not 取って代わるing or 新たにするing them. Doubtless it is not possible to draw a hard-and-急速な／放蕩な line. But it is probable that few individuals feel it necessary in such 事例／患者s to make a 財政上の 準備／条項 for 価値低下 apart from actual 修理s and 再開s. This, in combination with the difficulty of 得るing proper 統計（学） and of 製図／抽選 a （疑いを）晴らす line, makes it より望ましい, I think, to 除外する such 器具／備品 from 投資 and to 含む it in 消費-支出 in the year in which it is incurred. This is in 一致 with the 鮮明度／定義 of 消費 given in my General Theory, p. 54.
I shall, therefore, 除外する this 部類 from the final 計算／見積り; though I hope to を取り引きする the problem more 完全に at a later time.
にもかかわらず it may be 利益／興味ing to 引用する Mr Kuznets' 見積（る）s, which
are of 相当な magnitude:
| (Millions of dollars.) | |||||||||
| 1925 | 1926 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1931 | 1932 | 1933 | |
| 消費者's 持続する 商品／必需品s |
8,664 |
9,316 |
8,887 |
9,175 |
10,058 |
7,892 |
5,885 |
4,022 |
3,737 |
The above 人物／姿／数字 for 1929 含むs 3,400 million dollars for モーター-cars,
whilst the 価値低下 in 尊敬（する）・点 of the same item for that year is 概算の
at 2,500 million dollars.
(2) 居住の Construction
This is an important and 高度に fluctuating item which should undoubtedly
be 含むd in 投資, and not in 消費 支出, since houses
are usually regarded as 購入（する）d out of 貯金 and not out of income, and are often owned
by others than the occupiers. In the 公式発表 from which these 人物／姿／数字s
are taken Mr Kuznets gives no 見積（る） for the 年次の 率 of 価値低下,
etc. More recently, however, his 同僚, Mr Solomon Fabricant, has published
such 見積（る）s, which I have used in the に引き続いて （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する:
| (Millions of dollars.) | |||||||||
| 1925 | 1926 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1931 | 1932 | 1933 | |
| 居住の construction |
3,050 |
2,965 |
2,856 |
3,095 |
2,127 |
1,222 |
900 |
311 |
276 |
| 価値低下* | 1,554 | 1,676 | 1,754 | 1,842 | 1,911 | 1,901 | 1,698 | 1,460 | 1,567 |
| 逮捕する 投資 | 1,496 | 1,289 | 1,102 | 1,253 | 216 | -679 | -798 | -1,149 | -1,291 |
* These 人物／姿／数字s are calculated ーに関して／ーの点でs of 現在の (reproduction) costs.
Mr Fabricant has also 供給するd 見積（る）s ーに関して／ーの点でs of 初めの cost, which
for the years 事前の to 1932 are かなり lower.
(3) 商売／仕事 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 資本／首都
Mr Kuznets here distinguishes 支出 on new 生産者s' 持続する goods and 商売／仕事 construction from the 逮捕する change in '商売／仕事 在庫s,' i.e. in working and liquid 資本／首都; and we shall, therefore, を取り引きする the latter under a separate 長，率いるing.
The 量 of the deduction to 得る 逮捕する 投資 in 尊敬（する）・点 of parts, 修理s and servicing, and 修理s and 維持／整備 of 商売／仕事 construction as 際立った from 価値低下 and depletion, which is not made good, depends, of course, on whether the former have been 含むd in 甚だしい／１２ダース 投資. Mr Kuznets gives a 部分的な／不平等な 見積（る） for the former but the 人物／姿／数字s given below 除外する these items both from 甚だしい／１２ダース and from 逮捕する 投資. But whilst the result of deducting both the 修理s item and the 価値低下 item probably corresponds 公正に／かなり closely to my 逮捕する 投資, the two deductions taken 分かれて do not closely correspond to my deductions for 使用者 cost and 補足の cost; so that it is not possible to calculate from Mr Kuznets' data a 人物／姿／数字 corresponding to my (甚だしい／１２ダース) 投資.
The に引き続いて （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する gives in the first line 'the 形式 of 甚だしい／１２ダース
資本／首都 運命にあるd for 商売／仕事 use, 排除的 of parts, 修理s and servicing,
and 修理s and 維持／整備 of 商売／仕事 construction, and 除外するing changes
in 商売／仕事 在庫s'; and in the second line the 概算の '価値低下 and depletion' on
the same items:
| (Millions of dollars.) | |||||||||
| 1925 | 1926 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1931 | 1932 | 1933 | |
| 甚だしい／１２ダース 商売／仕事 資本／首都 形式
(as above) |
9,070 |
9,815 |
9,555 |
10,019 |
11,396 |
9,336 |
5,933 |
3,205 |
2,894 |
| 価値低下 and depletion* |
5,685 |
6,269 |
6,312 |
6,447 |
7,039 |
6,712 |
6,154 |
5,092 |
4,971 |
| 逮捕する 投資 | 3,385 | 3,546 | 3,243 | 3,572 | 4,357 | 2,624 | -221 | -1,887 | -2,077 |
* These 人物／姿／数字s are not taken from Mr Kuznets' 覚え書き, hut from Mr
Fabricant's later and 改訂するd 見積（る）s. As before they are ーに関して／ーの点でs of
現在の (交替／補充) cost. ーに関して／ーの点でs of 初めの cost they are appreciably
lower 事前の to 1931 and higher subsequently.
(4) 商売／仕事 在庫s
For the 財政上の 伸び（る）s or losses arising out of this item there appear
to be 公正に／かなり 適する 統計（学） in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs, though not in this
country. Mr Kuznets' 人物／姿／数字s are as follows:
| (Millions of dollars.) | |||||||||
| 1925 | 1926 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1931 | 1932 | 1933 | |
| 逮捕する 伸び（る） or loss in 商売／仕事 在庫s |
916 |
2,664 |
-176 |
511 |
1,800 |
100 |
-500 |
-2,250 |
-2,250 |
This （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する covers not only 製造業者s' 在庫／株s but also 在庫／株s of
農業者s, 地雷s, 仲買人s, 政府 機関s, etc. From 1929 onwards the
人物／姿／数字s given in Mr Kuznets' memorandum of 1934 証明するd to 要求する 是正.
Those given above are 一時的に and approximate 見積（る）s, 未解決の the
出版（物） of 改訂するd 人物／姿／数字s by the 国家の Bureau.
(5) Public Construction and Borrowing
The 関連した 人物／姿／数字 in this 状況 is not so much the 甚だしい／１２ダース (or 逮捕する) 支出 on construction, as the 量 of 支出 met out of a 逮捕する 増加する in borrowing. That is to say in the 事例／患者 of public 当局 and the like, their 逮捕する 投資 may be best regarded as 存在 手段d by the 逮捕する 増加する in their borrowing. In so far as their 支出s are met by compulsory 移転 from the 現在の income of the public, they have no correlative in 私的な saving; whilst public saving, if we were to find a 満足な 鮮明度／定義 for this 概念, would be 支配する to やめる different psychological 影響（力）s from 私的な saving. I have touched on the problem in my General Theory, footnote. I 提案する, therefore, to 挿入する in place of the 人物／姿／数字s of public construction the '貸付金 支出' of public 団体／死体s.
Mr Kuznets has very kindly 供給（する）d me with 人物／姿／数字s for the 逮捕する changes
in the 量 of public 負債 (連邦の, 明言する／公表する and 地元の) 優れた in
the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs, which, except for minor changes in the 政府's
cash balances, 代表する the 量 of public 支出 not covered by
税金s and other 歳入s. This is given below in 平行の with his 見積（る）s of the 量 of construction
by public 当局. The 利益／興味ing result 現れるs that up to 1928 there
was a 逮捕する 削減 in the public 負債 in spite of a large 支出
on public construction, and that even up to 1931 some part of public construction
was met out of 歳入. The 超過 of borrowing over construction in 1932
and 1933 代表するs, of course, さまざまな 対策 of public 救済.
| (Millions of dollars.) | |||||||||
| 1925 | 1926 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1931 | 1932 | 1933 | |
| Public construction |
2,717 |
2,612 |
3,045 |
3,023 |
2,776 |
3,300 |
2,906 |
2,097 |
1,659 |
| 逮捕する change in 優れた public 負債** |
-43 |
-280 |
-244 |
-50 |
+441 |
+1,712 |
+2,822 |
+2,565 |
+2,796 |
* See Mr Kuznets' 公式発表, （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する II, line 22, brought up to date on the basis of more 最近の data.
** See col. 9 of the （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する given in the 虫垂 below.
(6) Foreign 投資
Finally, we have the 逮捕する change in （人命などを）奪う，主張するs countries, 概算の by Mr
Kuznets as follows:
| (Millions of dollars.) | ||||||||
| 1925 | 1926 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1931 | 1932 | 1933 |
| 428 | 44 | 606 | 957 | 312 | 371 | 326 | 40 | 293 |
(7) Aggregate 逮捕する 投資
We are now in a position to 連合させる the above items into a 選び出す／独身 aggregate.
This total is not やめる 包括的な, since it 除外するs construction by
半分-public 機関s, and a small 量 unallocable construction. But Mr Kuznets is of the opinion that
both omissions are やめる minor in character and could not much 影響する／感情 the
movements of 逮捕する 投資 in the （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する which now follows.
| (Millions of dollars.) | |||||||||
| 1925 | 1926 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1931 | 1932 | 1933 | |
| 居住の construction |
1,496 |
1,289 |
1,102 |
1,253 |
216 |
-679 |
-798 |
-1,149 |
-1,291 |
| 商売／仕事 直す／買収する，八百長をするd 資本／首都 |
3,385 |
3,546 |
3,243 |
3,572 |
4,357 |
2,624 |
-221 |
-1,887 |
-2,077 |
| 商売／仕事 在庫s |
916 |
2,664 |
-176 |
511 |
1,800 |
100 |
-500 |
-2,250 |
-2,250 |
| 逮捕する 貸付金 支出s by public 当局 |
-43 |
-280 |
-244 |
-10 |
441 |
1,712 |
2,822 |
2,565 |
2,796 |
| Foreign 投資 |
428 |
44 |
606 |
957 |
312 |
371 |
326 |
40 |
293 |
| Aggregate 逮捕する 投資 |
6,182 |
7,263 |
4,531 |
6,283 |
7,126 |
4,128 |
1,629 |
-2,681 |
-2,529 |
It is evident that this （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する is of first-class importance for the 解釈／通訳 of 商売／仕事 fluctuations in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs. In 事柄s of 詳細（に述べる） the に引き続いて points stand out:
(a) The arrears of 居住の construction at the end of 1933 must have been enormous. For there had been no 逮捕する 投資 in this field since 1925. This does not mean, of course, that the actual 明言する／公表する of 住宅 was so bad as this. Some 甚だしい／１２ダース 投資 in 住宅 continued throughout, and the 漸進的な 悪化／低下 in the 明言する／公表する of accommodation, through obsolescence and decay not made good, does not impair forthwith to an equal extent the actual accommodation 利用できる for the time 存在.
(b) The part played by fluctuations in 商売／仕事 在庫s is very 示すd, 特に in accentuating the 不景気 at the 底（に届く） of the 低迷. The 増加する in 在庫s in 1929 was probably for the most part designed to 会合，会う 需要・要求する which did not fully materialise; whilst the small その上の 増加する in 1930 代表するd accumulations of unsold 在庫／株s. In 1932 and 1933, 製造業者s met 現在の 需要・要求する to an 驚くべき／特命の／臨時の extent out of 在庫／株s, so that 効果的な 需要・要求する fell 大部分は behind actual 消費. But this, fortunately, is a 明言する／公表する of 事件／事情／状勢s which could not continue 無期限に／不明確に. A その上の depletion of 在庫／株s on this 規模 could not かもしれない take place, since the 在庫／株s were no longer there. A level of 商売／仕事 在庫s so low as that which 存在するd in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs at the end of 1933 was an almost 確かな 先触れ（する） of some 手段 of 回復. In general an aggregate of 逮捕する 投資 which is based on an 増加する in 商売／仕事 在庫s beyond normal is 明確に 不安定な; and it is 平易な to see in retrospect that a large growth of 在庫s in 1929, coupled with a 拒絶する／低下する in 居住の construction, was ominous. The 人物／姿／数字s for 1934, 1935, and 1936 will be most 利益／興味ing when we have them. One would 推定する／予想する that the 回復 of the two former years has been based on a return of 在庫s to normal and on public 貸付金 支出, but that by 1936 持続する 投資 was beginning to 取って代わる 在庫s in making up the total. It is on the continued steadiness of the first two items of the above （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する at 人物／姿／数字s not いっそう少なく than those of 1925 to 1928 that the 維持／整備 of 繁栄 must depend; and it is for this 推論する／理由 that a low long-称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 率 of 利益／興味 is so vitally important.
(c) The manner in which the changes in public 貸付金 支出 （機の）カム in to 穏健な the fluctuations, which would have occurred さもなければ, is very 明らかな. The manner in which from 1931 連邦の borrowing took the place of 明言する／公表する and 地元の borrowing, as shown in the 虫垂 below, is striking. From 30 June 1924, to 30 June 1930, 連邦の 貸付金s 優れた fell from 21 to 15 billions, whilst in the same period 明言する／公表する and 地元の 貸付金s rose from 10 to 16 billions, the total remaining 不変の; 反して from 30 June 1930 to 30 June 1935, 連邦の 貸付金s rose from 15 to 26 billions and the others from 16 only to 17 billions. The 虫垂, which gives the 人物／姿／数字s of public borrowing up to 30 June 1935, shows¾contrary, perhaps, to the general impression¾that public borrowing was at its 高さ in 1931, and that in 1934-35 it was but little more than in 1929-30.
(d) When 類似の 人物／姿／数字s of income are 利用できる, we shall be able to make some computations as to the value of the Multiplier in the 条件s of the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs, though there are many 統計に基づく difficulties still to 打ち勝つ. If, however, as a very 天然のまま, 予選 実験（する） we take the Dept. of 商業 見積（る）s of income (uncorrected for price changes), we find that during the large movements of the years from 1929 to 1932 the changes in money-incomes were from three to five times the changes in 逮捕する 投資 shown above. In 1933 incomes and 投資 both 増加するd わずかに, but the movements were too 狭くする to 許す the 割合 of the one to the other to be calculated within a reasonable 利ざや of error.
J. M. KEYNES
A 公式文書，認める to 虫垂 2
TOTAL AND NET OUTSTANDING ISSUES OF PUBLIC DEBT
| (Millions of dollars.) | ||||||||
| Total 優れた 問題／発行するs | 逮捕する 優れた 問題／発行するs | |||||||
|
Date
(1) |
連邦の (2) |
明言する／公表する, 郡, city, etc. (3) |
連合させるd (4) |
連邦の (5) |
明言する／公表する, 郡, city, etc. (6) |
連合させるd (7) |
逮捕する change (8) |
普通の／平均（する） for calendar year
(9) |
| 1924 | 20,982 | 11,633 | 32,615 | 20,627 | 9,921 | 30,548 | - | - |
| 1925 | 20,211 | 12,830 | 33,041 | 19,737 | 10,975 | 30,712 | +164 | -43 |
| 1926 | 19,384 | 13,664 | 33,048 | 18,790 | 11,672 | 30,462 | -250 | -280 |
| 1927 | 18,251 | 14,735 | 32,986 | 17,542 | 12,610 | 30,152 | -310 | -244 |
| 1928 | 17,318 | 15,699 | 33,017 | 16,522 | 13,452 | 29,974 | -178 | -10 |
| 1929 | 16,639 | 16,760 | 33,399 | 15,773 | 14,358 | 30,131 | +157 | +441 |
| 1930 | 15,922 | 17,985 | 33,907 | 14,969 | 15,887 | 30,856 | +725 | +1,712 |
| 1931 | 16,520 | 19,188 | 35,708 | 16,098 | 17,457 | 33,555 | +2,699 | +2,822 |
| 1932 | 19,161 | 19,635 | 35,796 | 18,673 | 17,828 | 36,501 | +2,946 | +2,565 |
| 1933 | 22,158 | 19,107 | 41,265 | 21,613 | 17,072 | 36,685 | +2,184 | +2,796 |
| 1934 | 26,480 | 18,942 | 45,422 | 25,323 | 16,771 | 42,094 | +3,409 | +2,173 |
| 1935 | 27,645 | 19,277 | 46,922 | 26,137 | 16,895 | 43,032 | +938 | - |
(Source: 報告（する）／憶測 of the 財務長官 for year ended 30 June 1935, p. 424.)
Total 優れた 問題／発行するs 除外する a small 容積／容量 of 円熟したd and 非，不，無-利益／興味 耐えるing 義務s (see ibid., p. 379).
逮捕する 優れた 問題／発行するs are equal to total 優れた 問題／発行するs いっそう少なく those held in U.S. 政府 信用 基金s, or owned by U.S. 政府 or by 政治の 機関s and held in 沈むing 基金s.
The （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する above does not 含む the 次第で変わる／派遣部隊 負債 of the 連邦の
政府, i.e. 義務s 保証（人）d by the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs. These, 構成するing
大部分は 負債 問題／発行するs of the 連邦の Farm Mortgage 会社／団体, Home Owners
貸付金 会社／団体 and the 再建 財政／金融 会社／団体, were as follows:
| Date | Millions of dollars |
| 30 June 1934 | 691 |
| 31 December 1934 | 3,079 |
| 30 June 1935 | 4,151 |
| 31 December 1935 | 4,525 |
(See Cost of 政府 in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs, by the 国家の 産業の
会議／協議会 Board, pub. no. 223, New York, 1936, （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する 26, p. 68.)
From The 経済的な 定期刊行物, March 1939
RELATIVE MOVEMENTS OF REAL WAGES AND OUTPUT
An article by Mr J. G. Dunlop in this 定期刊行物 (September 1938, Vol. XLVIII, p. 413) on The Movement of Real and Money 行う 率s, and the 公式文書，認める by Mr L. Tarshis printed below [in the 経済的な 定期刊行物, March 1939] (p. 150), 明確に 示す that a ありふれた belief to which I acceded in my General Theory of 雇用 needs to be 再考するd. I there said:
It would be 利益／興味ing to see the results of a 統計に基づく enquiry into the actual 関係 between changes in money 給料 and changes in real 給料. In the 事例／患者 of a change peculiar to a particular 産業 one would 推定する／予想する the change in real 給料 to be in the same direction as the change in money 給料. But in the 事例／患者 of changes in the general level of 給料, it will be 設立する, I think, that the change in real 給料 associated with a change in money 給料, so far from 存在 usually in the same direction, is almost always in the opposite direction. . .This is because, in the short period, 落ちるing money 給料 and rising real 給料 are each, for 独立した・無所属 推論する／理由s, likely to …を伴って 減少（する）ing 雇用; 労働 存在 readier to 受託する 行う-削減（する）s when 雇用 is 落ちるing off, yet real 給料 必然的に rising in the same circumstances on account of the 増加するing ごくわずかの return to a given 資本／首都 器具／備品 when 生産（高） is 減らすd.But Mr Dunlop's 調査s into the British 統計（学） appear to show that, when money 給料 are rising, real 給料 have usually risen also; whilst, when money 給料 are 落ちるing, real 給料 are no more likely to rise than to 落ちる. And Mr Tarshis has reached 概して 類似の results in 尊敬（する）・点 of 最近の years in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs.
In the passage 引用するd above from my General Theory I was 受託するing, without taking care to check the facts for myself, a belief which has been 広範囲にわたって held by British 経済学者s up to the last year or two. Since the 構成要素 on which Mr Dunlop おもに depends¾すなわち, the indices of real and money 給料 用意が出来ている by Mr G. H. 支持を得ようと努めるd and Prof. Bowley-¾have been 利用できる to all of us for many years, it is strange that the 是正 has not been made before. But the underlying problem is not simple, and is not 完全に 性質の／したい気がして of by the 統計に基づく 熟考する／考慮するs in question.
First of all it is necessary to distinguish between two different problems. In the passage 引用するd above I was 取引，協定ing with the reaction of real 給料 to changes in 生産（高）, and had in mind 状況／情勢s where changes in real and money 給料 were a reflection of changes in the level of 雇用 原因（となる）d by changes in 効果的な 需要・要求する. This is, in fact, the 事例／患者 which, if I understand them rightly, Mr Dunlop and Mr Tarshis have まず第一に／本来 in 見解（をとる）. But there is also the 事例／患者 where changes in 給料 反映する changes in prices or in the 条件s 治める／統治するing the 行う 取引 which do not correspond to, or are not まず第一に／本来 the result of, changes in the level of 生産（高） and 雇用 and are not 原因（となる）d by (though they may 原因（となる）) changes in 効果的な 需要・要求する. This question I discussed in a different part of my General Theory (すなわち 一時期／支部 19, 'Changes in Money 給料'), where I reached the 結論 that 行う changes, which are not in the first instance 予定 to changes in 生産（高）, have コンビナート／複合体 reactions on 生産（高） which may be in either direction （許可，名誉などを）与えるing to circumstances and about which it is difficult to generalise. It is with the first problem only that I am 関心d in what follows.
The question of the 影響（力） on real 給料 of periods of にわか景気 and 不景気
has a long history. But we need not go さらに先に 支援する than the period of
the 'eighties and 'nineties of the last century, when it was the 支配する
of 調査 by さまざまな 公式の／役人 団体／死体s before which Marshall gave
証拠 or in the work of which he took part. I was myself brought up
upon the 証拠 he gave before the Gold and Silver （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限 in 1887
and the Indian 通貨 委員会 in 1899.
It is not always （疑いを）晴らす whether Marshall has in mind a rise in money 給料 associated with a
rise in 生産（高）, or one which 単に 反映するs a change in prices (予定, for
example, to a change in the 基準 which was the particular 支配する on
which he was giving 証拠); but in some passages it is evident that
he is 取引，協定ing with changes in real 給料 at times when 生産（高） is 拡大するing.
It is （疑いを）晴らす, however, that his 結論 is based, not like some
later arguments on à priori grounds arising out of 増加するing
ごくわずかの cost in the short period, but on 統計に基づく grounds which showed¾so
he thought¾that in the short period 給料
were stickier than prices. In his 予選 memorandum for the Gold and
Silver （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限 (公式の／役人 Papers, p. 19) he wrote: '[During a
slow and 漸進的な 落ちる of prices] a powerful 摩擦 tends to 妨げる money
給料 in most 貿易（する）s from 落ちるing as 急速な／放蕩な as prices; and this tends almost
imperceptibly to 設立する a higher 基準 of living の中で the working
classes, and to 減らす the 不平等s of wealth. These 利益s are
often ignored; but in my opinion they are often nearly as important as
the evils which result from that 漸進的な 落ちる of prices which is いつかs
called a 不景気 of 貿易（する）.' And when Mr chaplin asked him (op. cit.,
p. 99), 'You think that during a period of 不景気 the 雇うd working
classes have been getting more than they did before?' he replied, 'More
than they did before, on the 普通の／平均（する）.'
Subsequently, as appears from an important letter of April 1897 (hitherto unpublished) to Foxwell, who held somewhat 堅固に the opposite opinion, Marshall's opinion became rather more 試験的な; though the に引き続いて 抽出する 言及するs more to his general 態度 に向かって rising prices than to their particular 影響 on real 給料:
You know, my 見解（をとる）s on this 事柄 are (a) not very 確信して, (b) not very 温かく 支持するd by me, (c) not very old, (d) based 完全に on 非，不，無-academic arguments & 観察.In the years 68 to 77 I was 堅固に on the 味方する you now 支持する. The 観察 of events in Bristol made me 疑問. In 85, or 86 I wrote a Memn for the Comn on
不景気 showing a slight preference for rising prices. But in the に引き続いて two years I 熟考する／考慮するd the 事柄 closely, I read and analysed the 証拠 of 商売／仕事 men before that （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限; & by the time the Gold & Silver （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限 （機の）カム, I had just turned the corner.すぐに afterwards he began to work at his 証拠 for the Indian 通貨 委員会 which seems to have had the 影響 of 確認するing him in his previous opinion. His final considered opinion is given in Question 11,781:Since then I have read a 広大な／多数の／重要な 取引，協定, but almost 排他的に of a 非，不，無-academic order on the 支配する: & was thinking about it duhng a 広大な／多数の／重要な part of the 証拠 given by 商売／仕事 men & working men before the 労働 （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限. I have 設立する a good 取引，協定 that is new to 強化する my new 有罪の判決, nothing to shake it. I am far from 確かな I am 権利. I am 絶対 確かな that the 証拠 brought 今後 in print to the contrary in England and America (I have not read 大部分は for other countries) does not 証明する what it （人命などを）奪う，主張するs to, & does not 会合，会う or 心配する my arguments, in the simple way you seem to imagine.
I will 自白する that, for ten or fifteen years after I began to 熟考する／考慮する political economy, I held the ありふれた doctrine, that a rise of prices was 一般に 有益な to 商売／仕事 men 直接／まっすぐに, and 間接に to the working classes. But, after that time, I changed my 見解（をとる）s, and I have been 確認するd in my new opinions by finding that they are 大部分は held in America, which has recently passed through experiences somewhat 類似の to those of England 早期に in the century. The 推論する／理由s for the change in my opinion are rather long, and I gave them at some length before the Gold and Silver （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限. I think, perhaps, I had better content myself now with calling your attention to the fact that the 統計に基づく 面 of the 事柄 is in a different position now. The 主張s that a rise in prices 増加するd the real 給料 of the 労働者 were so consonant with the ありふれた opinion of people who had not 特に 熟考する／考慮するd the 事柄, that it was 受託するd almost as an axiom; but, within the last ten years, the 統計（学） of 給料 have been carried so far in 確かな countries, and 特に in England and America, that we are able to bring it to the 実験（する）. I have 蓄積するd a 広大な／多数の／重要な number of facts, but nearly everything I have 蓄積するd is 暗示するd in this （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する. It is copied from the article by Mr Bowley in the 経済的な 定期刊行物 for last December. It is the result of work that has been going on for a number of years, and seems to me to be 事実上 決定的な. It collects the 普通の／平均（する） 給料 in England from the year 1844 to the year 1891, and then calculates what 購入（する）ing 力／強力にする the 給料 would give at the different times, and it shows that the rise of real 給料 after 1873 when prices were 落ちるing was greater than before 1873 when prices were rising.Here follows a （米）棚上げする／（英）提議する from Prof. Bowley's article in this 定期刊行物 for December 1898. Marshall's final 結論 was crystallised in a passage in the 原則s (調書をとる／予約する VI, ch. VIII, §6):
'[When prices rise the 雇用者] will therefore be more able and more willing to 支払う／賃金 the high 給料; and 給料 will tend 上向きs. But experience shows that (whether they are 治める／統治するd by 事情に応じて変わる 規模s or not) they seldom rise as much in 割合 as prices; and therefore they do not rise nearly as much in 割合 as 利益（をあげる）s.'Although Marshall's 証拠 before the Indian 通貨 委員会 was given in 1899, Prof. Bowley's 統計（学） on which he was relying do not relate 効果的に to a date later than 1891 (or 1893 at 最新の). It is （疑いを）晴らす, I think, that Marshall's generalisation was based on experience from 1880 to 1886 which did in fact 耐える it out. If we divide the years from 1880 to 1914 into 連続する periods of 回復 and 不景気, the 幅の広い result, 許すing for 傾向, appears to be as follows:
| Real 給料 | ||
| 1880-1884 | 回復 | 落ちるing |
| 1884-1886 | 不景気 | Rising |
| 1886-1890 | 回復 | Rising |
| 1890-1896 | 不景気 | 落ちるing |
| 1896-1899 | 回復 | Rising |
| 1899-1905 | 不景気 | 落ちるing |
| 1905-1907 | 回復 | Rising |
| 1907-1910 | 不景気 | 落ちるing |
| 1910-1914 | 回復 | Rising |
によれば this, Marshall's generalisation 持つ／拘留するs for the periods from 1880 to 1884 and from 1884 to 1886, but for no その後の periods. It seems that we have been living all these years on a generalisation which held good, by exception, in the years 1880-86, which was the formative period in Marshall's thought in this 事柄, but has never once held good in the fifty years since he crystallised it! For Marshall's 見解（をとる） おもに 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるd, and Foxwell's contrary opinion was discarded as the heresy of an inflationist. It is to be 観察するd that Marshall 申し込む／申し出d his generalisation 単に as an 観察するd 統計に基づく fact, and, beyond explaining it as probably 予定 to 給料 存在 stickier than prices, he did not 試みる／企てる to support it by à priori 推論する／理由ing. The fact that it has 生き残るd as a dogma confidently 受託するd by my 世代 must be explained, I think, by the more theoretical support which it has subsequently received.
To my 声明 that Marshall's generalisation has remained uncorrected until recently there is, however, an important exception. In his 産業の Fluctuations, published in 1927, Professor Pigou pointed out (p. 217) that 'the upper halves of 貿易（する） cycles have, on the whole, been associated with higher 率s of real 給料 than the lower halves,' and he printed in support of this a large 規模 chart for the period from 1850 to 1910. Subsequently, however, he seems to have 逆戻りするd to the Marshallian tradition, and in his Theory of 失業, published in 1933, he 令状s (p. 296):
In general, the translation of inertia from real 行う-率s to money 行う-率s 原因（となる）s real 率s to move in a manner not compensatory, but complementary, to movements in the real 需要・要求する 機能（する）／行事. Real 行う-率s not 単に fail to 落ちる when the real 需要・要求する for 労働 is 落ちるing, but 現実に rise; and, in like manner, when the real 需要・要求する for 労働 is 拡大するing, real 行う-率s 落ちる.About that time M. Rueff had attracted much attention by the 出版（物） of 統計（学） which 趣旨d to show that a rise in real 給料 tended to go with an 増加する in 失業, Prof. Pigou points out that these 統計（学） are vitiated by the fact that M. Rueff divided money 給料 by the 卸売 索引 instead of by the cost-of-living 索引, and he does not agree with M. Rueff that the 観察するd rise in real 給料 was the main 原因（となる） of the 増加するd 失業 with which it was associated. But he 結論するs, にもかかわらず (p. 300), on a balance of considerations, that 'there can be little 疑問 that in modern 産業の communities this latter 傾向 (i.e. for 転換s in real 需要・要求する to be associated with 転換s in the opposite sense in the 率 of real 給料 for which work people 規定する) is predominant'.
Like Marshall, Prof. Pigou based his 結論 まず第一に／本来 on the stickiness of money 給料 比較して to prices. But my own 準備完了 to 受託する the 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing generalisation, at the time when I was 令状ing my General Theory, was much 影響（力）d by an à priori argument, which had recently won wide 受託, to be 設立する in Mr R. F. Kahn's article on 'The Relation of Home 投資 to 雇用,' published in the 経済的な 定期刊行物 for June 1931. The supposed empirical fact, that in the short period real 給料 tend to move in the opposite direction to the level of 生産（高）, appeared, that is to say, to be in 順応／服従 with the more 根底となる generalisations that 産業 is 支配する to 増加するing ごくわずかの cost in the short period, that for a の近くにd system as a whole ごくわずかの cost in the short period is 大幅に the same thing as ごくわずかの 行う cost, and that in 競争の激しい 条件s prices are 治める／統治するd by ごくわずかの cost; all this 存在 支配する, of course, to さまざまな 資格s in particular 事例／患者s, but remaining a reliable generalisation by and large.
I now recognise that the 結論 is too simple, and does not 許す 十分に for the 複雑さ of the facts. But I still 持つ／拘留する to the main structure of the argument, and believe that it needs to be 修正するd rather than discarded. That I was an 平易な 犠牲者 of the 伝統的な 結論 because it fitted my theory is the opposite of the truth. For my own theory this 結論 was inconvenient, since it had a 傾向 to 相殺する the 影響（力） of the main 軍隊s which I was discussing and made it necessary for me to introduce 資格s, which I need not have troubled with if I could have 可決する・採択するd the contrary generalisation favoured by Foxwell, Mr Dunlop and Mr Tarshis. In particular, the 伝統的な 結論 played an important part, it will be remembered, in the discussions, some ten years ago, as to the 影響 of expansionist 政策s on 雇用, at a time when I had not developed my own argument in as 完全にする a form as I did subsequently. I was already arguing at that time that the good 影響 of an expansionist 投資 政策 on 雇用, the fact of which no one 否定するd, was 予定 to the 興奮剤 which it gave to 効果的な 需要・要求する. Prof. Pigou, on the other 手渡す, and many other 経済学者s explained the 観察するd result by the 削減 in real 給料 covertly 影響d by the rise in prices which 続いて起こるd on the 増加する in 効果的な 需要・要求する. It was held that public 投資 政策s (and also an 改良 in the 貿易収支 through 関税s) produced their 影響 by deceiving, so to speak, the working classes into 受託するing a lower real 行う, 影響ing by this means the same favourable 影響（力） on 雇用 which, によれば these 経済学者s, would have resulted from a more direct attack on real 給料 (e.g. by 減ずるing money 給料 whilst 施行するing a credit 政策 calculated to leave prices 不変の). If the 落ちるing 傾向 of real 給料 in periods of rising 需要・要求する is 否定するd, this 代案／選択肢 explanation must, of course, 落ちる to the ground. Since I 株d at the time the 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing belief as to the facts, I was not in a position to make this 否定. If, however, it 証明するs 権利 to 可決する・採択する the contrary generalisation, it would be possible to 簡単にする かなり the more 複雑にするd 見解／翻訳／版 of my 根底となる explanation which I have expounded in my General Theory. My practical 結論s would have, in that 事例／患者, à fortiori 軍隊. If we can 前進する さらに先に on the road に向かって 十分な 雇用 than I had 以前 supposed without 本気で 影響する／感情ing real hourly 給料 or the 率 of 利益（をあげる）s per 部隊 of 生産（高）, the 警告s of the anti-expansionists need 原因（となる） us いっそう少なく 苦悩.
にもかかわらず, we should, I 服従させる／提出する, hesitate somewhat and carry our 調査s
その上の before we discard too much of our former 結論s which, 支配する
to the 権利 資格s, have à priori support and have
生き残るd for many years the scrutiny of experience and ありふれた sense. I
申し込む／申し出, therefore, for その上の 統計に基づく 調査 an 分析 of the elements
of the problem with a 見解（をとる） to discovering at what points the 証拠不十分s
of the former argument 現れる. There are five 長，率いるs which deserve separate
consideration.
I
First of all, are the 統計（学） on which Mr Dunlop and Mr Tarshis are relying 十分に 正確な and 十分に uniform in their 指示，表示する物s to form the basis of a reliable induction?
For example, in so 最近の a 編集 as the League of Nations World 経済的な 調査する 1937-38, 用意が出来ている by Mr J. E. Meade, the 伝統的な 結論 receives support, not on à prioriecently 利用できる 統計（学）. I 引用する the に引き続いて from pp. 54-55:
During the 広大な／多数の／重要な 不景気 after 1929, the 需要・要求する for goods and services 減らすd, and in consequence the price of 商品／必需品s fell 速く. In most countries, as can be seen from the graph on p. 52, hourly money 給料 were 減ずるd as the 需要・要求する for 労働 fell; but in every 事例／患者 there was a greater 落ちる in prices, so that hourly real 給料 rose. . .[It is then explained that the same was not true of 週刊誌 給料.]. . .Since the 回復, the opposite movements may be 観察するd. In most countries, 増加するd 需要・要求する for goods and services has 原因（となる）d 物価s to rise more 速く than hourly money 給料, and the hourly real 行う has fallen. . .In the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs and フラン, however, the rise in money 給料 was so 早い between 1936 and 1937 that the hourly real 行う continued to rise. . .When real hourly 給料 are raised¾i.e. when the 利ざや between 物価s and the money-行う cost becomes いっそう少なく favourable¾雇用者s are likely to 減らす the 量 of 雇用 which they 申し込む／申し出 to 労働. While there were, no 疑問, other 影響（力）s 影響する／感情ing the 需要・要求する for 労働, the importance of this factor is 井戸／弁護士席 illustrated by the graph on p. 53. In the 事例／患者 of all the countries 代表するd for which （警察などへの）密告，告訴（状） is 利用できる, the 落ちる in 物価s between 1929 and 1932 原因（となる）d a rise in the hourly real 行う, and this was …を伴ってd by a diminution in 雇用. . .(it is shown that on the 回復 there has been a greater variety of experience). . .This 権威のある 熟考する／考慮する having international 範囲 示すs that the new generalisations must be 受託するd with reserve. In any 事例／患者 Mr Tarshis's scatter diagram printed below [in the 経済的な 定期刊行物, March 1939] (p. 150), whilst it shows a 限定された preponderance in the south-west and north-east compartments and a high coefficient of 協会, 含むs a かなりの number of 相違する 事例／患者s, and the 絶対の 範囲 of most of the scatter is 極端に small, with a 示すd clustering in the neighbourhood of the 無 line for changes in real 給料; and much the same is true of Mr Dunlop's results. The 広大な／多数の／重要な 大多数 of Mr Tarshis's 観察s relate to changes of いっそう少なく than 1.5 per cent. In the introduction to his 給料 and Income in the 部隊d Kingdom since 1860, Prof. Bowley 示すs that this is probably いっそう少なく than the 利ざや of error for 統計（学） of this 肉親，親類d. This general 結論 is 増強するd by the fact that it is hourly 給料 which are 関連した in the 現在の 状況, for which 正確な 統計（学） are not 利用できる. Moreover, in the 地位，任命する-scriptum to his 公式文書，認める, Mr Tarshis explains that whilst real 給料 tend to move in the same direction as money 給料, they move in the opposite direction, though only わずかに, to the level of 生産（高） as 手段d by man-hours of 雇用; from which it appears that Mr Tarshis's final result is in 順応／服従 with my 初めの 仮定／引き受けること, which is, of course, 関心d with hourly 給料. It seems possible, therefore, taking account of Mr Meade's results, that I may not, after all, have been 本気で wrong.
その上に, for 推論する／理由s given below, it is important to separate the
観察s （許可，名誉などを）与えるing as the 絶対の level of 雇用 is distinctly
good or only mediocre. It may be that we can analyse our results so as
to give two 際立った generalisations によれば the 絶対の level reached
by 雇用. If, at the 現在の 行う／開催する／段階 of the 調査, we are to make
any 選び出す／独身 統計に基づく generalisation, I should prefer one to the 影響
that, for fluctuations within the 範囲 which has been usual in the periods
調査／捜査するd which seldom approach 条件s of 十分な 雇用, short-period
changes in real 給料 are usually so small compared with the changes in
other factors that we shall not often go far wrong if we 扱う／治療する real 給料
as 大幅に constant in the short period (a very helpful simplification
if it is 正当化するd). The 結論, that changes in real 給料 are not
usually an important factor in short-period fluctuations until the point
of 十分な 雇用 is approaching, is one which has been already reached
by Dr Kalecki on the basis of his own 調査s.
II
It may be that we have under-概算の the quantitative 影響 of a factor of which we have always been aware. Our argument assumed that, 概して speaking, 労働 is remunerated ーに関して／ーの点でs of its own 合成物 製品, or at least that the price of 行う-goods moves in the same way as the price of 生産（高） as a whole. But no one has supposed that this was 厳密に the 事例／患者 or was better than an approximation; and it may be that the 割合 of 行う-goods, which are not the 現在の 製品 of the 労働 in question and the prices of which are not 治める／統治するd by the ごくわずかの cost of such 製品, is so 広大な／多数の／重要な as to 干渉する with the reliability of our approximation. House-rent and goods 輸入するd on changing 条件 of 貿易（する） are 主要な examples of this factor. If in the short period rents are constant and the 条件 of 貿易（する） tend to 改善する when money 給料 rise and to 悪化する when money 給料 落ちる, our 結論 will be upset in practice in spite of the 残り／休憩（する） of our premisses 持つ／拘留するing good.
In the 事例／患者 of this country one has been in the habit of supposing that
these two factors have in fact tended to 相殺する one another, though the
opposite might be the 事例／患者 in the raw-構成要素 countries. For 反して rents,
存在 大部分は 直す／買収する，八百長をするd, rise and 落ちる いっそう少なく than money 給料, the price of
輸入するd food-stuffs tends to rise more than money 給料 in periods of
activity and to 落ちる more in periods of 不景気. At any 率 both Mr
Dunlop and Mr Tarshis （人命などを）奪う，主張する to show that fluctuations in the 条件 of 貿易（する）
(条件 of foreign 貿易（する） in Mr Dunlop's British 調査 and 条件 of 貿易（する）
between 産業 and 農業 in Mr Tarshis's American 調査) are
not 十分な to 影響する／感情 the general 傾向 of their results, though
they 明確に 修正する them quantitatively to a かなりの extent. にもかかわらず, the 影響 of 支出 on items such as rent, gas, electricity,
water, 輸送（する）, etc., of which the prices do not change materially in
the short period, needs to be 分かれて calculated before we can be （疑いを）晴らす.
If it should 現れる that it is this factor which explains the results,
the 残り／休憩（する） of our 根底となる generalisations would remain undisturbed. It
is important, therefore, if we are to understand the 状況／情勢, that the
statisticians should endeavour to calculate 給料 ーに関して／ーの点でs of the actual
製品 of the 労働 in question.
III
Has the 身元確認，身分証明 of ごくわずかの cost with ごくわずかの 行う cost introduced
a 関連した error? In my General Theory of 雇用, I have argued that this 身元確認，身分証明 is dangerous in
that it ignores a factor which I have called 'ごくわずかの 使用者 cost'. It is
ありそうもない, however, that this can help us in the 現在の 状況. For ごくわずかの
使用者 cost is likely to 増加する when 生産（高） is 増加するing, so that this
factor would work in the opposite direction from that 要求するd to explain our
現在の problem, and would be an 付加 推論する／理由 for 推定する／予想するing prices
to rise more than 給料. Indeed, one would, on general grounds, 推定する／予想する
ごくわずかの total cost to 増加する more, and not いっそう少なく, than ごくわずかの 行う
cost.
IV
Is it the 仮定／引き受けること of 増加するing ごくわずかの real cost in the short period which we せねばならない 嫌疑者，容疑者／疑う? Mr Tarshis finds part of the explanation here; and Dr Kalecki is inclined to infer だいたい constant ごくわずかの real cost. But there is an important distinction which we have to make. We should all agree that if we start from a level of 生産（高） very 大いに below capacity, so that even the most efficient 工場／植物 and 労働 are only 部分的に／不公平に 雇うd, ごくわずかの real cost may be 推定する／予想するd to 拒絶する／低下する with 増加するing 生産（高）, or, at the worst, remain constant. But a point must surely come, long before 工場／植物 and 労働 are fully 雇うd, when いっそう少なく efficient 工場／植物 and 労働 have to be brought into （売買）手数料，委託（する）／委員会／権限 or the efficient organisation 雇うd beyond the optimum degree of intensiveness. Even if one 譲歩するs that the course of the short-period ごくわずかの cost curve is downwards in its 早期に reaches, Mr Kahn's 仮定／引き受けること that it 結局 turns 上向きs is, on general ありふれた-sense grounds, surely beyond reasonable question; and that this happens, moreover, on a part of the curve which is 高度に 関連した for practical 目的s. Certainly it would 要求する more 納得させるing 証拠 than yet 存在するs to 説得する me to give up this presumption.
にもかかわらず, it is of 広大な／多数の／重要な practical importance that the statisticians should endeavour to 決定する at what level of 雇用 and 生産（高） the short-period ごくわずかの-cost curve for the 合成物 製品 as a whole begins to turn 上向き and how はっきりと it rises after the turning-point has been reached. This knowledge is 必須の for the 解釈／通訳 of the 貿易（する） cycle. It is for this 推論する／理由 that I 示唆するd above that the 観察s of the 親族 movement of real and money 給料 should be 分かれて 分類するd によれば the 普通の／平均（する） level of 雇用 which had been reached.
It may 証明する, indeed, at any 率 in the 事例／患者 of 統計（学） relating to 最近の years that the level of 雇用 has been preponderantly so low that we have been living more often than not on the reaches of the curve before the 批判的な point of 上昇傾向 has been 達成するd. It should be noticed that Mr Tarshis's American 人物／姿／数字s relate only to the period from 1932 to 1938, during the whole of which period there has been such 激しい 失業 in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs, both of 労働 and of 工場／植物, that it would be やめる plausible to suppose that the 批判的な point of the ごくわずかの cost curve had never been reached. If this has been the 事例／患者, it is important that we should know it. But such an experience must not 誤って導く us into supposing that this must やむを得ず be the 事例／患者, or into forgetting the はっきりと different theory which becomes applicable after the turning-point has been reached.
If, indeed, the 形態／調整 of the ごくわずかの-cost curve 証明するs to be such that
we tend to be living, with 条件s as they are at 現在の, more often
to the left than to the 権利 of its 批判的な point, the practical 事例／患者
for a planned expansionist 政策 is かなり 増強するd; for many
caveats
to which we must …に出席する after this point has been reached can be, in
that 事例／患者, frequently neglected. In taking it as my general 仮定／引き受けること
that we are often on the 権利 of the 批判的な point, I have been taking
the 事例／患者 in which the practical 政策 which I have 支持するd needs the
most careful 扱うing. In particular the 警告s given, やめる rightly,
by Mr D. H. Robertson of the dangers which may arise when we encourage
or 許す the activity of the system to 前進する too 速く along the 上向き
slopes of the ごくわずかの-cost curve に向かって the goal of 十分な 雇用,
can be more often neglected, for the time 存在 at least, when the 仮定／引き受けること
which I have 以前 認める as normal and reasonable is abandoned.
V
There remains the question whether the mistake lies in the approximate 身元確認，身分証明 of ごくわずかの cost with price, or rather in the 仮定／引き受けること that for 生産（高） as a whole they 耐える a more or いっそう少なく proportionate 関係 to one another irrespective of the intensity of 生産（高）. For it may be the 事例／患者 that the practical workings of the 法律s of imperfect 競争 in the modern quasi-競争の激しい system are such that, when 生産（高） 増加するs and money 給料 rise, prices rise いっそう少なく than in 割合 to the 増加する in ごくわずかの money cost. It is scarcely likely, perhaps, that the 狭くするing gap could be 十分な to 妨げる a 拒絶する／低下する in real 給料 in a 段階 in which ごくわずかの real cost was 増加するing 速く. But it might be 十分な to 相殺する the 影響 on real 給料 of a modest rise in ごくわずかの real cost, and even to 支配する the 状況／情勢 in the event of the ごくわずかの real cost curve 証明するing to be almost 水平の over a 相当な 部分 of its 関連した length.
It is evidently possible that some such factor should 存在する. It might be, in a sense, 単に an 拡張 of the stickiness of prices of which we have already taken account in II above. Apart from those prices which are 事実上 constant in the short period, there are 明白に many others which are, for さまざまな 推論する／理由s, more or いっそう少なく sticky. But this factor would be 特に likely to 現れる when 生産（高） 増加するs, in so far as 生産者s are 影響（力）d in their practical price 政策s and in their 開発／利用 of the 適切な時期s given them by the imperfections of 競争, by their long-period 普通の／平均（する） cost, and are いっそう少なく attentive than 経済学者s to their short-period ごくわずかの cost. Indeed, it is rare for anyone but an 経済学者 to suppose that price is predominantly 治める／統治するd by ごくわずかの cost. Most 商売／仕事 men are surprised by the suggestion that it is a の近くに 計算／見積り of short-period ごくわずかの cost or of ごくわずかの 歳入 which should 支配する their price 政策s. They 持続する that such a 政策 would 速く land in 破産 anyone who practised it. And if it is true that they are producing more often than not on a 規模 at which ごくわずかの cost is 落ちるing with an 増加する in 生産（高）, they would 明確に be 権利; for it would be only on rare occasions that they would be collecting anything whatever に向かって their 総計費. It is, beyond 疑問, the practical 仮定／引き受けること of the 生産者 that his price 政策 せねばならない be 影響（力）d by the fact that he is 普通は operating 支配する to 減少（する）ing 普通の／平均（する） cost, even if in the short-period his ごくわずかの cost is rising. His 成果／努力 is to 持続する prices when 生産（高） 落ちるs and, when 生産（高） 増加するs, he may raise them by いっそう少なく than the 十分な 量 要求するd to 相殺する higher costs 含むing higher 給料. He would 収容する／認める that this, regarded by him as the reasonable, 慎重な and far-sighted 政策, goes by the board when, at the 高さ of the にわか景気, he is 圧倒するd by more orders than he can 供給（する）; but even so he is filled with foreboding as to the ultimate consequences of his 存在 軍隊d so far from the 権利 and reasonable 政策 of 直す／買収する，八百長をするing his prices by 言及／関連 to his long-period 総計費 同様に as his 現在の costs. Rightly ordered 競争 consists, in his opinion, in a proper 圧力 to 安全な・保証する an 調整 of prices to changes in long-period 普通の／平均（する） cost; and the suggestion that he is becoming a dangerous and anti-social monopolist whenever, by open or tacit 協定 with his competitors, he endeavours to 妨げる prices from hollowing short-period ごくわずかの cost, however much this may 落ちる away from long-period 普通の／平均（する） cost, strikes him as 悲惨な. (It is the 失敗 of the 最新の 段階 of the New 取引，協定 in the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs, in contrast to the earliest 段階, of which the opposite is true, to distinguish between price 協定s for 持続するing prices in 権利 relation to 普通の／平均（する） long-period cost and those which 目的（とする） at 得るing a 独占主義的な 利益（をあげる） in 超過 of 普通の／平均（する） long-period cost which strikes him as 特に 不公平な.)
Thus, since it is the avowed 政策 of industrialists to be content with a smaller 甚だしい／１２ダース 利益（をあげる） per 部隊 of 生産（高） when 生産（高） 増加するs than when it 拒絶する／低下するs, it is not ありそうもない that this 政策 may be, at least 部分的に／不公平に, operative. It would be of 広大な／多数の／重要な 利益／興味 if the statisticians could show in 詳細（に述べる） in what way 甚だしい／１２ダース 利益（をあげる） per 部隊 of 生産（高） changes in different 産業s with a changing 割合 between actual and capacity 生産（高）. Such an 調査 should distinguish, if possible, between the 影響 of 増加するing 生産（高） on 部隊-利益（をあげる） and that of higher costs in the 形態／調整 of higher money 給料 and other expenses. If it should appear that 増加するing 生産（高） as such has a 傾向 to 減少（する） 部隊-利益（をあげる）, it would follow that the 政策 示唆するd above is actual 同様に as professed. If, however, the 拒絶する／低下する in 部隊-利益（をあげる） appears to be おもに the result of a 傾向 of prices to 相殺する higher costs incompletely, irrespective of changes in the level of 生産（高）, then we have 単に an example of the stickiness of prices arising out of the imperfection of 競争 intrinsic to the market 条件s. Unfortunately it is often difficult or impossible to distinguish 明確に between the 影響s of the two 影響（力）s, since higher money costs and 増加するing 生産（高） will 一般に go together.
A 井戸／弁護士席-known 統計に基づく 現象 which せねばならない have put me on my guard 確認するs the probability of constant or 減らすing, rather than 増加するing, 利益（をあげる） per 部隊 of 生産（高） when 生産（高） 増加するs. I mean the 安定 of the 割合 of the 国家の （株主への）配当 accruing to 労働, irrespective 明らかに of the level of 生産（高） as a whole and of the 段階 of the 貿易（する） cycle. This is one of the most surprising, yet best-設立するd, facts in the whole 範囲 of 経済的な 統計（学）, both for 広大な／多数の／重要な Britain and for the 部隊d 明言する／公表するs. The に引き続いて 人物／姿／数字s summarise 簡潔に what are, I believe, the undisputed facts:
RELATIVE SHARE OF MANUAL LABOUR IN THE NATIONAL INCOME OF GREAT BRITAIN
| 1911 | 40.7 | 1924 | 43.0 | 1928 | 43.0 | 1932 | 43.0 | |||
| 1925 | 40.8 | 1929 | 42.4 | 1933 | 42.7 | |||||
| 1926 | 42.0 | 1930 | 41.1 | 1934 | 42.0 | |||||
| 1927 | 43.0 | 1931 | 43.7 | 1935 | 41.8 |
RELATIVE SHARE OF MANUAL LABOUR IN THE NATIONAL INCOME OF U.S.A.
| 1919 | 34.9 | 1923 | 39.3 | 1927 | 37.0 | 1931 | 34.9 | |||
| 1920 | 37.4 | 1924 | 37.6 | 1928 | 35.8 | 1932 | 36.0 | |||
| 1921 | 35.0 | 1925 | 37.1 | 1929 | 36.1 | 1933 | 37.2 | |||
| 1922 | 37.0 | 1926 | 36.7 | 1930 | 35.0 | 1934 | 35.8 |
The fluctuations in these 人物／姿／数字s from year to year appear to be of a 無作為の character, and certainly give no 重要な 指示，表示する物s of any 傾向 to move against 労働 in years of 増加するing 生産（高）. It is the 安定 of the 割合 for each country which is 主として remarkable, and this appears to be a long-run, and not 単に a short-period, 現象. Moreover, it would be 利益／興味ing to discover whether the difference between the British and the American 割合 is 予定 to a discrepancy in the basis of reckoning 可決する・採択するd in the two 始める，決めるs of 統計（学） or to a 重要な difference in the degrees of monopoly 流布している in the two countries or to technical 条件s.
In any 事例／患者, these facts do not support the recently 勝つ／広く一帯に広がるing 仮定／引き受けることs as to the 親族 movements of real 給料 and 生産（高）, and are inconsistent with the idea of there 存在 any 示すd 傾向 to 増加するing 部隊-利益（をあげる） with 増加するing 生産（高）. Indeed, even in the light of the above considerations, the result remains a bit of a 奇蹟. For even if price 政策s are such as to 原因（となる） 部隊-利益（をあげる） to 減少（する） in the same circumstances as those in which ごくわずかの real cost is 増加するing, why should the two 量s be so 関係のある that, 関わりなく other 条件s, the movement of the one almost 正確に／まさに 相殺するs the movement of the other? I recently 申し込む／申し出d the problem of explaining this , as Edgeworth would have called it, to the 研究 students at Cambridge. The only 解答 was 申し込む／申し出d by Dr Kalecki in the brilliant article which has been published in Econometrica. Dr Kalecki here 雇うs a 高度に 初めの technique of 分析 into the distributional problem between the factors of 生産／産物 in 条件s of imperfect 競争, which may 証明する to be an important piece of 開拓する work. But the main upshot is what I have 示すd above, and Dr Kalecki makes, to the best of my understanding, no 限定された 進歩 に向かって explaining why, when there is a change in the 割合 of actual to capacity 生産（高）, the corresponding changes in the degree of the imperfection of 競争 should so 正確に／まさに 相殺する other changes. Nor does he explain why the 配当 of the 製品 between 資本／首都 and 労働 should be stable in the long run, beyond suggestion that changes of one 肉親，親類d always just serve to 相殺する changes of another; yet it is very surprising that on balance there should have been a constant degree of monopoly over the last twenty years or longer. His own explanation is based on the 仮定／引き受けることs that ごくわずかの real costs are constant, that the degree of the imperfection of the market changes in the opposite direction to 生産（高）, but that this change is 正確に 相殺する by the fact that the prices of basic raw 構成要素s (購入（する）d by the system from outside) 比較して to money 給料 増加する and 減少（する） with 生産（高）. Yet there is no obvious 推論する／理由 why these changes should so nearly 相殺する one another; and it would seem safer not to assume that ごくわずかの real costs are constant, but to 結論する that in actual fact, when 生産（高） changes, the change in the degree of the imperfection of the market is such as to 相殺する the 連合させるd 影響 of changes in ごくわずかの costs and of changes in the prices of 構成要素s bought from outside the system 比較して to money 給料. It may be noticed that Dr Kalecki's argument assumes the 存在 of an opposite change in the degree of the imperfection of 競争 (or in the degree in which 生産者s take advantage of it) when 生産（高） 増加するs from that 推定する／予想するd by Mr R. F. Harrod in his 熟考する／考慮する on The 貿易（する） Cycle. There Mr Harrod 推定する／予想するs an 増加する; here constancy or a 減少（する） seems to be 示すd. Since Mr Harrod gives grounds for his 結論s which are prima facie plausible, this is a その上の 推論する／理由 for an 試みる／企てる to put the 問題／発行する to a more 決定的な 統計に基づく 実験（する）.
To 明言する／公表する the 事例／患者 more 正確に／まさに, we have five factors which fluctuate in the short period with the level of 生産（高）:
(1) The price of 行う-goods 親族 to the price of the 製品;And it appears that, for 推論する／理由s which are not yet （疑いを）晴らす, these factors taken in 合同 have no 重要な 影響（力） on the 配当 between 労働 and 資本／首都 of the income resulting from the 生産（高）. Whatever a more 完全にする 調査 into the problem may bring 前へ／外へ, it is evident that Mr Dunlop, Mr Tarshis and Dr Kalecki have given us much to think about, and have 本気で shaken the 根底となる 仮定／引き受けることs on which the short-period theory of 配当 has been based hitherto;¾ it seems that for practical 目的s a different 始める，決める of simplifications from those 可決する・採択するd hitherto are より望ましい. 一方／合間 I am 慰安d by the fact that their 結論s tend to 確認する the idea that the 原因（となる）s of short-period fluctuation are to be 設立する in changes in the 需要・要求する for 労働, and not in changes in its real-供給（する） price; though I complain a little that I in particular should be criticised for 譲歩するing a little to the other 見解（をとる） by admitting that, when the changes in 効果的な 需要・要求する to which I myself attach importance have brought about a change in the level of 生産（高）, the real-供給（する） price for 労働 would in fact change in the direction assumed by the theory I am …に反対するing¾as if I was the first to have entertained the fifty-year-old generalisation that, 傾向 除去するd, 増加するing 生産（高） is usually associated with a 落ちるing real 行う.(2) The price of goods bought from outside the system 比較して to money 給料;
(3) The ごくわずかの 行う cost;
(4) The ごくわずかの 使用者 cost (I attach importance to 含むing this factor because it helps to 橋（渡しをする） the discontinuity between an 増加する of 生産（高） up to short-period capacity and an 増加する of 生産（高） 伴う／関わるing an 増加する beyond the capacity assumed in short-period 条件s); and
(5) The degree of the imperfection of 競争.
I 勧める, にもかかわらず, that we should not be too 迅速な in our 改正s, and that その上の 統計に基づく enquiry is necessary before we have a 会社／堅い 創立／基礎 of fact on which to 再建する our theory of the short period. In particular we need to know:
(i) How the real hourly 行う changes in the short period, not 単に in relation to the money 行う, but in relation to the 百分率 which actual 生産（高） 耐えるs to capacity 生産（高）;J. M. KEYNES(ii) How the 購入（する）ing 力／強力にする of the 産業の money 行う in 条件 of its own 製品 changes when 生産（高） changes; and
(iii) How 甚だしい／１２ダース 利益（をあげる） per 部隊 of 生産（高） changes (a) when money costs change, and (b) when 生産（高） changes.