第七章 中英文 对照 版本 就业 利息 货币 通论.doc

CHAPTER 7THE MEANING OF SAVING AND INVESTMENT FURTHER CONSIDEREDIIN the previous chapter Saving and Investment have been so defined that they are necessarily equal in amount, being, for the community as a whole, merely different aspects of the same thing. Several contemporary writers (including myself in my Treatise on Money) have, however, given special definitions of these terms on which they are not necessarily equal. Others have written on the assumption that they may be unequal without prefacing their discussion with any definitions at all. It will be useful, therefore, with a view to relating the foregoing to other discussions of these terms, to classify some of the various uses of them which appear to be current. 在前一章，对储蓄和投资以这样的方式定义，以致它们在数量上必然是相等的，因为对社会整体而言，它们不过是同一事物的不同方面。然而，几位当代学者（包括写作货币论时的我本人）曾为这些名词下过特殊的定义，并认为它们并不必然相等。其他学者的论著则建立在它们并不相等的假设上，但在讨论中并未给出任何定义。所以，对这两个术语的不同用法进行分类，以便明确以往关于这两个术语的讨论同其它讨论的关系，对读者将会是有用的。So far as I know, everyone agrees in meaning by saving the excess of income over what is spent on consumption. It would certainly be very inconvenient and misleading not to mean this. Nor is there any important difference of opinion as to what is meant by expenditure on consumption. Thus the differences of usage arise either out of the definition of Investment or out of that of Income. 据我所知，每个人都同意，储蓄的意义在于它是收入超过消费支出的部分。如果储蓄的意义不是这样的话，那肯定是很不方便并会引起误解。至于什么是用于消费的开支，并不存在任何重大的观点分歧。因此，用法的差异不是来自对投资的有关定义，便是来自对收入的定义。IILet us take Investment first. In popular usage it is common to mean by this the purchase of an asset, old or new, by an individual or a corporation. Occasionally, the term might be restricted to the purchase of an asset on the Stock Exchange. But we speak just as readily of investing, for example, in a house, or in a machine or in a stock of finished or unfinished goods and, broadly speaking, new investment, as distinguished from reinvestment, means the purchase of a capital asset of any kind out of income. If we reckon the sale of an investment as being negative investment, i.e. disinvestment, my own definition is in accordance with popular usage; since exchanges of old investments necessarily cancel out. We have, indeed, to adjust for the creation and discharge of debts (including changes in the quantity of credit or money); but since for the community as a whole the increase or decrease of the aggregate creditor position is always exactly equal to the increase or decrease of the aggregate debtor position, this complication also cancels out when we are dealing with aggregate investment. Thus, assuming that income in the popular sense corresponds to my net income; aggregate investment in the popular sense coincides with my definition of net investment, namely the net addition to all kinds of capital equipment, after allowing for those changes in the value of the old capital equipment which are taken into account in reckoning net income. 让我们首先考察投资。在普通用法中，投资的一般意义是个人或公司对或新或旧的资产的购买。这个名词偶尔被限定为在证券交易所购买一张有价证券。但是，我们所说的投资包括，例如，投资于一座房屋，或者一台机器，或者一批制成品或半制成品；并且，一般来说，所谓新投资，有别于再投资，是指用收入来购买任何种类的资本资产。如果我们把一项投资的出售算作负投资，即反向投资，则我的定义与普通用法相符，因为旧投资的买和卖必然相互抵消。诚然，我们必须照顾到债务的形成与偿付（包括信用或货币数量的变化）。但由于对整个社会而言，总债权数量的增加或减少总是正好等于总债务数量的增加或减少。所以，当我们讨论的是总投资时，信用和货币的复杂之处会相互抵消。这样，假设通俗意义上的收入相当于我的净收入，则通俗意义上的总投资和我的净投资的意义是完全等同的，即：所有种类的资本设备的净增加额。为得到净增加额而被减去的原有资本设备的价值变动已经在净收入的计算中予以扣除了。Investment thus defined includes therefore the increment of capital equipment, whether it consists of fixed capital, working capital or liquid capital; and the significant differences of definition (apart from the distinction between investment and net investment) are due to the exclusion from investment of one or more of these categories. 以如此方式定义的投资包括资本设备的增加额，不论它是固定资本，还是运营资本或者流动资本。如果投资的定义有重大差异（除投资和净投资的差异之外），那是由于把上述三种资本中的一种或一种以上的资本排除在投资之外了。Mr. Hawtrey, for example, who attaches great importance to changes in liquid capital, i.e. to undersigned increments (or decrements) in the stock of unsold goods, has suggested a possible definition of investment from which such changes are excluded. In this case an excess of saving over investment would be the same thing as an undesigned increment in the stock of unsold goods, i.e. as an increase of liquid capital. Mr. Hawtrey has not convinced me that this is the factor to stress; for it lays all the emphasis on the correction of changes which were in the first instance unforeseen, as compared with those which are, rightly or wrongly, anticipated. Mr. Hawtrey regards the daily decisions of entrepreneurs concerning their scale of output as being varied from the scale of the previous day by reference to the changes in their stock of unsold goods. Certainly, in the case of consumption goods, this plays an important part in their decisions. But I see no object in excluding the play of other factors on their decisions; and I prefer, therefore, to emphasize the total change of effective demand and not merely that part of the change in effective demand which reflects the increase or decrease of unsold stocks in the previous period. Moreover, in the case of fixed capital, the increase or decrease of unused capacity corresponds to the increase or decrease in unsold stocks in its effect on decisions to produce; and I do not see how Mr. Hawtreys method can handle this at least equally important factor. 例如，霍特里先生认为，流动资本的改变，即未出售商品存货数量的意外增加（或减少）具有很大的重要性，因而提出了一个把这种变化排除在外的可能的投资定义。在这种情形，储蓄超过投资的部分实际等同于未售出商品存货量的意外增加，即流动资本的增加。霍特里先生并没有说服我，为什么这是应该强调的因素，因为他把全部重点放在了对最初未预料到的改变的矫正上，而不是放在对预期到的（不论预期是否正确）改变的矫正上。霍特里先生认为，企业家会参照其未售出商品存货量的变动而改变每日的生产规模决策。当然，对于消费品情形，存货的改变对他的决策起着重大作用。但是，我找不出理由来排除掉影响决策的其它因素。所以，我倾向于强调有效需求的总体变化，而不仅仅是反映前一时期未出售存货增减的那部分有效需求的变化。再者，对于固定资本情形，闲置生产能力的增加或减少，对于生产决策的影响相当于未出售存货量的增加或者减少。我看不出霍特里先生的方法如何能处理这至少同等重要的因素。It seems probable that capital formation and capital consumption, as used by the Austrian school of economists, are not identical either with investment and disinvestment as defined above or with net investment and disinvestment. In particular, capital consumption is said to occur in circumstances where there is quite Clearly no net decrease in capital equipment as defined above. I have, however, been unable to discover a reference to any passage where the meaning of these terms is clearly explained. The statement, for example, that capital formation occurs when there is a lengthening of the period of production does not much advance matters. 奥地利经济学家所使用的资本形成和资本消费的概念，似乎可能既不等同于上面加以定义的投资和负投资，也不等同于净投资或净负投资。在某种特定情形，资本消费被认为是可以出现于上面所定义的资本设备没有净减少的情况之中。然而，我还未能发现任何能把这些术语的意义解释清楚的著作。例如，当生产期间延长时，即有资本形成，这种论述并不能解决多少问题。IIIWe come next to the divergences between saving and Investment which are due to a special definition of income and hence of the excess of income over consumption. My own use of terms in my Treatise on Money is an example of this. For, as I have explained on p. 60 above, the definition of income, which I there employed, differed from my present definition by reckoning as the income of entrepreneurs not their actually realised profits but (in some sense) their normal profit. Thus by an excess of saving over investment I meant that the scale of output was such that entrepreneurs were earning a less than normal profit from their ownership of the capital equipment; and by an increased excess of saving over investment I meant that a decline was taking place in the actual profits, so that they would be under a motive to contract output. 现在我们再来考察由于收入的特殊定义以及因此而造成的收入超过消费的部分所引起的储蓄与投资的不等。我本人在我的货币论中关于术语的用法，就是这方面的一个例子，因为正像我在前面第6章第1节末段所解释的那样，我在该书所使用的收入与我现在所使用的收入的定义不同。该书的定义是把企业家的“正常利润”（在一定意义上），而不是实际的利润作为企业家的收入。因此，所谓储蓄大于投资，我的意思是：产量规模处于这样的状态，以致企业家从他所拥有的设备得到了低于正常利润的收益，而关于储蓄大于投资部分的增长，我的意思是：实际利润在下降，从而企业家具有减少产量的动机。As I now think, the volume of employment (and consequently of output and real income) is fixed by the entrepreneur under the motive of seeking to maximize his present and prospective profits (the allowance for user cost being determined by his view as to the use of equipment which will maximise his return from it over its whole life); whilst the volume of employment which will maximise his profit depends on the aggregate demand function given by his expectations of the sum of the proceeds resulting from consumption and investment respectively on various hypotheses. In my Treatise on Money the concept of changes in the excess of investment over saving, as there defined, was a way of handling changes in profit though I did not in that book distinguish clearly between expected and realized results My method there was to regard the current realised profit as determining the current expectation of profit. I there argued that change in the excess of investment over saving was the motive force governing changes in the volume of output. Thus the new argument, though (as I now think) much more accurate and instructive, is essentially a development of the old. Expressed in the language of my Treatise on Money, it would run: the expectation of an increased excess of Investment over saving, given the former volume of employment and output, will induce entrepreneurs to increase the volume of employment and output. The significance of both my present and my former arguments lies in their attempt to show that the volume of employment is determined by the estimates of effective demand made by the entrepreneurs, an expected increase of investment relatively to saving as defined in my Treatise on Money being a criterion of an increase in effective demand, But the exposition in my Treatise on Money is, of course, very confusing and incomplete in the light of the further developments here set forth. 我现在认为，就业量（因而产量和实际收入）是由企业家决定的，其动机在于谋求他现在和未来的利润的最大化（需要的扣除使用者成本的大小，取决于他如何通过设备的使用在设备的使用寿命期间得到的最大收益）。与此同时，能使其利润最大化的就业量取决于总需求函数。总需求函数由企业家在各种不同的假设条件下，预期分别由消费和投资所产生的收益之和所给出。在我的货币论中，投资超过储蓄的量的变化的概念，如同在那所定义的，是一种处理利润变动的方法，虽然我在那本书里对预期的和实现的结果并未加以明确的区分 在那里，我的方法是把当期已实现的利润当作决定当期对利润预期的因素。在那里，我论证说：投资超过储蓄的那部分的变动，是支配产量变动的一种动力。因此，我的新论点（像在本书中所认为的）虽然更精确和更有启发性，但基本上只不过是我旧观点的发展。如果用我在货币论中的语言来表述，则我的新观点可叙述如下：当过去的就业量和产量为既定时，投资超过消费的部分的增长，将诱致企业家增加就业量和产量。我现在和过去论点的重要性在于，它们试图表明就业量是由企业家对有效需求的估计所决定的。而我在货币论中所定义的投资相对于储蓄的预期增加，是有效需求增加的一个准绳。但是，鉴于我在这里提出的进一步的发展，我在货币论中的说明，当然就是很含糊不清、很不清楚的了。Mr. D. H. Robertson has defined to-days income as being equal to yesterdays consumption plus investment, so that to-days saving, in his sense, is equal to yesterdays investment plus the excess of yesterdays consumption over to-days consumption. On this definition saving can exceed investment, namely, by the excess of yesterdays income (in my sense) over todays income. Thus when Mr. Robertson says that there is an excess of saving over investment, he means literally the same thing as I mean when I say that income is falling, and the excess of saving in his sense is exactly equal to the decline of income in my sense. If it were true that current expectations were always determined by yesterdays realized results, todays effective demand would be equal to yesterdays income. Thus Mr. Robertsons method might be regarded as an alternative attempt to mine (being, perhaps, a first approximation to it) to make the same distinction, so vital for causal analysis, that I have tried to make by the contrast between effective demand and income Vide Mr. Robertsons article Saving and Hoarding (Economic Journal, September 1933, P. 399) and the discussion between Mr. Robertson, Mr. Hawtrey and myself (Economic Journal, December 1933, P. 658). DH罗伯森先生曾经论证，今天的收入等于昨天的消费加投资，从而今天的储蓄，等于昨天的投资加昨天的消费高于今天的消费的部分。根据这个分析，储蓄能够超过投资，即昨天的收入（按照我的意思）超过今天的收入。这样，当罗伯森先生说有一个储蓄超过投资的部分，他的意思和我说收入下降的意思实际是等同的。按照他的意思说储蓄超过投资的部分，正好等同于按照我的意思所说的收入下降的部分。如果当期的预期确实总是由昨天所实现的结果来决定，那么，今天的有效需求将等于昨天的收入。因此，罗伯森先生的方法可以被认为是有别于我的方法的另一种具有相同目标的企图（或许是一种近似于我的方法）来对有效需求和收入加以区分，这种区分对因果分析是至关重要的 参阅罗伯森先生的文章储蓄与窖藏，经济学杂志，1933年9月号，第399页。以及罗伯森先生、霍特里先生和我自己之间的讨论，经济学杂志，1933页12月号，第658页。IVWe come next to the much vaguer ideas associated with the phrase forced saving. Is any clear significance discoverable in these? In my Treatise on Money (vol. i. P. 171, footnote) I gave some references to earlier uses of this phrase and suggested that they bore some affinity to the difference between investment and saving in the sense in which I there used the latter term. I am no longer confident that there was in fact so much affinity as I then supposed. In any case, I feel sure that forced saving and analogous phrases employed more recently (e.g. by Professor Hayek or Professor Robbins) have no definite relation to the difference between investment and saving in the sense intended in my Treatise on Money. For whilst these authors have not explained exactly what they mean by this term, it is clear that forced saving, in their sense, is a phenomenon which results directly from, and is measured by, changes in the quantity of money or bank-credit. 我们在下面将论述与“强迫储蓄”这个术语有关的许多远为含糊的观念。在这些观念中，有任何明显的重要意义可以发现吗？在我的货币论中（第1卷，第171页脚注），我提供了一些最早使用这个名词的参考文献，并且认为这些用法和我在该书中所说的投资与“储蓄”的差别有些接近。现在我不再肯定，这种接近事实上是否还像我当时所设想的那么大。无论如何，我确信：“强迫储蓄”以及最近使用的（例如哈耶克教授或者罗宾斯教授所使用的）类似的名词，和投资与“储蓄”间的差别没有确定的关系。这里所谓的投资与“储蓄”的差别，是我在货币论中所指的那个意思。虽然这些学者并没有确切地解释这些名词是什么意思。但是，关于“强迫储蓄”，他们的意思是很清楚的，是指在货币或者银行信用的数量变化中直接产生出来，并可用这种改变加以衡量的一种经济现象。It is evident that a change in the volume of output and employment will, indeed, cause a change in income measured in wage-units; that a change in the wage unit will cause both a redistribution of income between borrowers and lenders and a change in aggregate income measured in money; and that in either event there will (or may) be a change in the amount saved. Since, therefore, changes in the quantity of money may result, through their effect on the rate of interest, in a change in the volume and distribution of income (as we shall show later), such changes may involve, indirectly, a change in the amount saved. But such changes in the amounts saved are no more forced than any other changes in the amounts saved due to a change in circumstances; and there is no means of distinguishing between one case and another, unless we specify the amount saved in certain given conditions as our norm. or standard. Moreover, as we shall see, the amount of the change in aggregate saving which results from a given change, in the quantity of money is highly variable and depends on many other factors. 显而易见，产量和就业量的变动的确会引起用工资单位计量的收入的变动；工资单位的变动又会引起借款者和放款者之间收入的再分配，以及用货币计量的总收入的变动；并且，不论就产量和就业量的变化所造成的后果而言，还是就工资变动所造成的后果而言，都将（或者可能）产生储蓄量的变动。因此，货币数量的变动通过对利息率的影响，会造成收入的量及其分配的变动（以后将会表明）。这种变动可能间接地引起储蓄数量地变动。但是，储蓄数量的这种变动并不比任何客观条件的改变所造成的储蓄数量的改变更具有“强迫储蓄”的性质；从而，除非我们规定在某种既定条件下的储蓄数量为正常值或标准值，我们是没有方法来区分强迫储蓄与非强迫储蓄的。再者，像我们将看到的，从一定货币数量的变动所产生的总储蓄数量的变动是有高度的可变性。它取决于很多其它因素。Thus forced saving has no meaning until we have specified some standard rate of saving. If we select (as might be reasonable) the rate of saving which corresponds to an established state of full employment, the above definition would become: Forced saving is the excess of actual saving over what would be saved if there were full employment in a position of long-period equilibrium. This definition would make good sense, but a sense in which a forced excess of saving would be a very rare and a very unstable phenomenon, and a forced deficiency of saving the usual state of affairs. 因此，在我们没有规定一个标准的储蓄量以前，“强迫储蓄”是没有意义的。如果我们选择（可能是合理的）一个相当于充分就业状态下的储蓄量为标准，则上述定义就变成：“强迫储蓄是实际储蓄量超过长期均衡中充分就业状态下的储蓄量的部分。”这个定义是有意义的。但根据这个定义，强迫储蓄将是很少见的、很不稳定的一种现象。强迫储蓄不足倒是常态。Professor Hayeks interesting Note on the Development of the Doctrine of Forced Saving Quarterly Journal of Economics, Nov. 1932, P. 123. shows that this was in fact the original meaning of the term. Forced saving or forced frugality was in the first instance, a conception of Benthams; and Bentham expressly stated that he had in mind the consequences of an increase in the quantity of money (relatively to the quantity of things vendible for money) in circumstances of all hands being employed and employed in the most advantageous manner Loc. cit. p. 125. In such circumstances, Bentham points out, real income cannot be increased, and, consequently, additional investment, taking place as a result of the transition, involves forced frugality at the expense of national comfort and national justice All the nineteenth-century writers who dealt with this matter had virtually the same idea in mind. But an attempt to extend this perfectly clear notion to conditions of less than full employment involves difficulties. It is true, of course (owing to the fact of diminishing returns to an increase in the employment applied to a given capital equipment), that any increase in employment involves some sacrifice of real income to those who were already employed, but an attempt to relate this loss to the increase in investment which may accompany the increase in employment is not likely to be fruitful. At any rate I am not aware of any attempt having been made by the modern writers who are interested in forced saving to extend the idea to conditions where employ ment is increasing; and they seem, as a rule, to overlook the fact that the extension of the Benthamite concept of forced frugality to conditions of less than full employment requires some explanation or qualification. 哈耶克教授饶有趣味的文章强迫储蓄学说的发展简论 经济学季刊，1932年11月号，第123页。中指出，这正是该名词的原意。“强迫储蓄”或者“强迫节俭”本来是边沁提出的一个概念。边沁明确地说，他心目中所想的是，在“所有的人手都被雇用，而且是以很有利的方式被雇用” 经济学季刊，1932年11月号，第125页。的情况下，货币数量增加（相对于货币可以购买的东西而言）的后果。边沁指出：在这种情况下，实际收入不能增加，结果，发生在经济过渡中的追加的投资也会引起强迫节俭，“以国民生活水平的牺牲和社会正义的背离为代价”。所有19世纪的学者在涉及这个问题时，实质上都有同样的想法。但是，要想把这个十分清楚的想法扩大到低于充分就业的情形是十分困难的。当然（由于增加的就业应用于一定的资本设备时的报酬递减规律的作用），任何就业的增加都会使已经就业者牺牲一部分实际工资。但是，要把这种收入的损失和可能伴随就业增加的投资的增长联系起来，是不可能得到什么研究成果的。无论如何，我不知道对“强迫储蓄”感兴趣的现代学者们已经做过任何企图把这个思想扩展到就业正在增加的情况。他们看来似乎普遍地忽略了这个事实：把边沁的强迫节俭的概念扩展到小于充分就业的状态需要某些说明和限制条件。VThe prevalence of the idea that saving and investment, taken in their straightforward sense, can differ from one another is to be explained, I think, by an optical illusion due to regarding an individual depositors relation to his