Обсуждаются критические замечания, высказывавшиеся в отношении утверждений о зависимости между выпуском продукции и затратами на ее производство. Разбор проведен на основе статистического анализа реальных данных (как в кратко-, так и в долгосрочном периоде).

Professors Friedman and Becker have recently presented some interesting calculations, embodying six different hypotheses about the determinants of consumption expenditure.1 An examination of the relative efficacy of these alternative functions in predicting income from a known or estimated level of led the authors to the rather startling conclusion that it is a better first approximation to regard real as having no multiplier effects on real consumption whatever and real consumption as simply determined by its own longterm trend, than to regard real as the prime mover and changes in real income as largely mirroring changes in real investment (page 75). Although Professors Friedman and Becker have been concerned solely with the predictive power of various schemes, they suggest that their results indicate a substantive conclusion about the structure of the economy, namely that the simple Keynesian consumption function, in which consumption is largely determined by current income, is not a basically correct, even though admittedly oversimplified, specification of the economic structure. If our analysis is valid, this widespread belief that consumption and income can be regarded as dancing primarily to the tune of unstable is largely the product of a statistical illusion (page 74). The multiplier would appear to be dead. But before we commit the body irrevocably to the grave, I would put forward the following points for consideration. i. It is legitimate and useful to regard the predictive power of a model as a test, but only one test, of the validity of that model. The test, however, is usually made by predicting values for periods outside those from which the model has been estimated. The Friedman-Becker test is concerned with the relative error within the period to which their various consumption functions have been fitted. This may be a crucial factor in determining the conclusions they have reached. During I906-5I, the United States economy has functioned in such a way as to generate a fairly persistent upward trend in real per capita consumption. Thus a trend model such as Ct = I62.0 + 237.oeO2t + Ut

What is the exact nature of the consumption function? Can this term be defined so that it will be consistent with empirical evidence and a valid instrument in the hands of future economic researchers and policy makers? In this volume a distinguished American economist presents a new theory of the consumption function, tests it against extensive statistical J material and suggests some of its significant implications.Central to the new theory is its sharp distinction between two concepts of income, measured income, or that which is recorded for a particular period, and permanent income, a longer-period concept in terms of which consumers decide how much to spend and how much to save. Milton Friedman suggests that the total amount spent on consumption is on the average the same fraction of permanent income, regardless of the size of permanent income. The magnitude of the fraction depends on variables such as interest rate, degree of uncertainty relating to occupation, ratio of wealth to income, family size, and so on.The hypothesis is shown to be consistent with budget studies and time series data, and some of its far-reaching implications are explored in the final chapter.