| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Economic concept[edit]
What most neoclassical economists mean by "full" employment is a rate somewhat less than 100% employment. Others, such as the late James Tobin, have been accused of disagreeing, considering full employment as 0% unemployment.[7] However, this was not Tobin's perspective in his later work.[8]
Some see John Maynard Keynes as attacking the existence of rates of unemployment substantially above 0%:
- "The Conservative belief that there is some law of nature which prevents men from being employed, that it is 'rash' to employ men, and that it is financially 'sound' to maintain a tenth of the population in idleness for an indefinite period, is crazily improbable - the sort of thing which no man could believe who had not had his head fuddled with nonsense for years and years. The objections which are raised are mostly not the objections of experience or of practical men. They are based on highly abstract theories – venerable, academic inventions, half misunderstood by those who are applying them today, and based on assumptions which are contrary to the facts… Our main task, therefore, will be to confirm the reader's instinct that what seems sensible is sensible, and what seems nonsense is nonsense." – J. M. Keynes and H. D. Henderson in a pamphlet to support Lloyd George in the 1929 election.[9]
ケインズの階級観[編集]
ケインズは、企業者と労働者とからなる活動階級 (active-class) と資金の供給側である投資者（債権者）からなる非活動階級 (inactive-class) の二階級観をもっていた[注釈 6][22]。
インフレーションは金利生活者に損失を、デフレーションは失業によって労働者に損失をもたらすものと見ていた（「貨幣改革論」）が、ことにストックの価値を高めるデフレーションは、活動階級の犠牲の下に貨幣愛に囚われた非活動階級に利得を得させるものと捉え、これを緩やかなインフレーションよりも問題の多いものと見ていた。
また非活動階級に対しては当時投資の流動化によって企業が「投機の渦巻きの中の泡沫」と化していたことを問題とし、また当時のような極端な富の不平等を不確実性および無知に乗じて[23]獲得された利益によるものとして排斥した上、本人の活動によらない富に対する課税として相続税の極端な強化を主張しており、総じて「金利生活者の安楽死」という表現に象徴されるように、非活動階級から活動階級への経済上の支配権の交替を求めていた[注釈 7]。
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿