Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SUMMARY
I. Why SI4, 297.-Difficulties of seeing this: the confusionbetween
stocks and flows, 299; the paradox of individual freedom and social
necessity, 300; the habit of labeling expenditureas "out of" particular
income receipts, 302; the failure to recognize the mathematical or
analytical nature of the proposition, 304; a misunderstandingof argu-
ments about equilibrium, 305. - II. Miss Curtis' condition that "all
income is spent," 305; her failure to see the place of "wishes" in eco-
nomic analysis, 307.- III. An attempt to salvage one of Miss Curtis'
results, 308.
Y2-c2=82
II
A first readingof Miss Curtis'articlegives the impression
of a daring attack on the propositionthat I= S. A closer
examinationshows, however,that Miss Curtis puts forward
all of the objections and difficultiesdiscussed in the first
first section of this paper (as well as some minor confusions
more peculiarto herself) and in orderto be able to dismiss
the propositionas a truism she has ultimatelyto admit it as
true. This she does on page;616 wherefor the first time she
306 QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS
III
There seems to be one point that Miss Curtis is perhaps
trying to make which does not rest entirely upon misunder-
standing. When she says that Mr. Keynes' definition of sav-
ing (the excess of income over expenditure on consumption
goods) "has nothing to do with saving in the ordinary sense
of withholding money income from consumption expendi-
ture" (p. 616), she may mean that people's expenditure is a
more stable function of income received at some time or in
SAVING EQUALS INVESTMENT 309