参考：
TOWARDS THE GENERAL THEORY
shall substitute the proposition that expenditure creates its
own income, i.e. an income just sufficient to meet the
expenditure. This, we shall find, is a more general proposition
than the former. For whilst the former must be taken to mean
that a change in the aggregate cost of production will be
balanced by an equal change in aggregate expenditure, the
latter is consistent with inequality between changes in the cost
of production and changes in expenditure.
The doctrine that supply creates its own demand has
dominated classical theory during the century since Ricardo
established it. Malthus's powerful arguments against this
theory were completely forgotten, partly
.. [A page of manuscript is missing at this point].
The distinction between a co-operative economy and an
entrepreneur economy bears some relation to a pregnant
observation made by Karl Marx,-though the subsequent use
to which he put this observation was highly illogical. He
pointed out that the nature of production in the actual world
is not, as economists seem often to suppose, a case of
C-M-C',i.e. of exchanging commodity (or effort) for money
in order to obtain another commodity (or effort). That may
be the standpoint of the private consumer. But it is not the
attitude of business, which is a case of M-C-M', i.e. of
parting with money for commodity (or effort) in order to
obtain more money.* This is important for the following
reason
81
PREPARATION
The classical theory supposes that the readiness of the
entrepreneur to start up a productive process depends on the
amount of value in terms of product which he expects to fall
to his share; i.e. that only an expectation of more product for
himself will induce him to offer more employment. But in an
entrepreneur economy this is a wrong analysis of the nature
of business calculation. An entrepreneur is interested, not in
the amount of product, but in the amount of money which will
fall to his share. He will increase his output if by so doing he
expects to increase his money profit, even though this profit
represents a smaller quantity of product than before.
The explanation of this is evident. The employment of
factors of production to increase output involves the entre
preneur in the disbursement, not of product, but of money.
The choice before him in deciding whether or not to offer
employment is a choice between using money in this way or
in some other way or not using it at all. He has the command
of L1oo (in hand or by borrowing), and he will use it if by
so doing he expects, after deducting his variable costs
including interest on the £1oo, to turn it into more than £ioo
The only question before him is to choose, out of the various
ways of employing £ioo, that way which will yield the largest
profit in terms of money. It must be remembered that future
prices, in so far as they are anticipated, are already reflected
in current prices, after allowing for the various considerations
of carrying costs and of opportunities of production in the
meantime which relate the spot and forward prices of a given
Cf.H.L. McCracken, Value Theory and Business Cycles, [New York, 1933] p. 46,
where this part of Marx's theory is cited in relation to modern theory. The excess
of M'over M is the source of Marx's surplus value. It is a curiosity in the history
of economic theory that the heretics of the past hundred years who have, in one
shape or another, opposed the formula M-C-M' to the classical formula
C-M-C', have tended to believe either that M'must always and necessarily exceed
M or that M must always and necessarily exceed M', according as they were living
in a period in which the one or the other predominated in actual experience. Marx
and those who believe in the necessarily exploitatory character of the capitalist
system, assert the inevitable excess of M: whilst Hobson, or Foster and Catchings,
or Major Douglas who believe in its inherent tendency towards deflation and
under-employment, assert the inevitable excess of M. Marx, however, was
approaching the intermediate truth when he added that the continuous excess
of M' would be inevitably interrupted by a series of crises, gradually increasing
in intensity, or entrepreneur bankruptcy and underemployment, during which,
esumably, M must be in excess. My own argument, if it is accepted, should at
least serve to effect a reconciliation between the followers of Marx and those of
Major Douglas, leaving the classical economists still high and dry in the belief that
M and M'are always equal !
where this part of Marx's theory is cited in relation to modern theory. The excess
of M'over M is the source of Marx's surplus value. It is a curiosity in the history
of economic theory that the heretics of the past hundred years who have, in one
shape or another, opposed the formula M-C-M' to the classical formula
C-M-C', have tended to believe either that M'must always and necessarily exceed
M or that M must always and necessarily exceed M', according as they were living
commodity. Thus we must suppose that the spot and
forward price structure has already brought into equilibrium
the relative advantages, as estimated by the holder, of
holding money and other existing forms of wealth. Thus if
the advantage in terms of money of using money to start up
a productive process is increased, this will stimulate entre-
preneurs to offer more employment. It may be true that
employment will be greater in one situation than in another,
although the larger money profit in the first case corresponds
to a smaller quantity of product than does the smaller
money profit in the second case. For the entrepreneur is
guided, not by the amount of product he will gain, but by the
he entre alternative opportunities for using money having regard to
the spot and forward price structure taken as a whole.
t to ofer Thus the classical theory fails us at both ends, so to speak,
is way ar if we try to apply it to an entrepreneur economy. For it is not
mman true that the entrepreneur's demand for labour depends on
e it ith the share of the product which will fall to the entrepreneur;
lo and it is not true that the supply of labour depends on the
share of the product which will fall to labour. It is these
fundamental divergencies at the outset which make it im
practicable to start with the classical theory and then, at
an advanced stage of the argument, to adapt its conclusions
to the vagaries of an Entrepreneur Economy.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿