자료 1 ( 구글도서(p. 159~ ) ) ; 자료 2 ( Jstor )
출처(자료 1): F. A. Hayek, "A Rejoinder to Mr. Keynes", Economica, vol. 11, Nov. 1931 pp. 398-403
출처(자료 2): F. A. Hayek, "A Rejoinder to Mr. Keynes", Economica, No. 34 (Nov. 1931), pp. 398-403
※ This is Hayek's rejoinder to Keynes's reply to the part 1 of the previous review of Treatise by Hayek.
* * *
p. 400
( ... ) As I understand him now, his position is that an excess of saving over investment will arise when part of saving, instead of being used for new investments, is used to make up for losses. [2] Let us take the simplest cae which according to his assumption would fall into this category. If an entrepreneur who fails to earn his expected normal entrepreneur's wage[=income] (a) cuts down his personal expenditure accordinglyㅡto the extent to which his expenditure fell below his "normal" wage, this would constitute saving in Mr. Keynes's terminology (Vol. I, p. 139)[3]ㅡand (b) continues to pay out on costs of current output as much as before, then these "savings" would not lead to corresponding investing. This is no doubt true as a consequence of the definition of the concept chosen, but it explains neither how the excess of saving over investing, nor how the windfall losses arose, but only that both are ex definitione identical. To say that excess of saving over investment is the cause of the losses (or the reverse) has no sense whatever. ( ... ... )
p. 400
( ... ) As I understand him now, his position is that an excess of saving over investment will arise when part of saving, instead of being used for new investments, is used to make up for losses. [2] Let us take the simplest cae which according to his assumption would fall into this category. If an entrepreneur who fails to earn his expected normal entrepreneur's wage[=income] (a) cuts down his personal expenditure accordinglyㅡto the extent to which his expenditure fell below his "normal" wage, this would constitute saving in Mr. Keynes's terminology (Vol. I, p. 139)[3]ㅡand (b) continues to pay out on costs of current output as much as before, then these "savings" would not lead to corresponding investing. This is no doubt true as a consequence of the definition of the concept chosen, but it explains neither how the excess of saving over investing, nor how the windfall losses arose, but only that both are ex definitione identical. To say that excess of saving over investment is the cause of the losses (or the reverse) has no sense whatever. ( ... ... )
글
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기