SEMAINE D'ÉTUDE SUR LE ROLE DE L’ANALYSE ECONOMETRIOUE ETC. 
514 
progress (and this is the case in HAAVELMO’s paper), it is impossible 
to derive the conclusion that there can be an indefinite increase in 
real consumed income, as is the case in HAAVELMO’s paper (rela 
ion 4.8). 
My second observation is the following: in any case is the for- 
mula verified by facts? Do we observe that there is a correlation 
between the rate of growth and the volume of public investment? 
As far as I know, it is impossible to derive that conclusion from 
:he data we have. 
A third point: It seems to me it is very difficult to assume 
some oscillations of private investment (equation 4.1) without in- 
troducing the monetary aspects explicitly. In fact it is certain that 
f there is a depression it can be fought efficiently by making public 
nvestment, but under one very important condition. This is, that 
he public investment be combined with creation of money, Ii 
public investment is not combined with the issue of new money, 
‘he global effect for the whole economy will remain the same as it 
was in the past. With public investment there can be a positive 
multiplier effect but if this public investment is financed by a di- 
minution of spending elsewhere, there is a negative multiplier effect 
2lsewhere and the global effect on the whole economy is o. Thus 
to have the advantage of full employment, it is not public invest- 
ment which is important but the creation of new money. And if, 
nstead of undertaking new public investment, one could imagine 
the state spending its money in some other way, for instance by 
giving subsidies to people, anything which is not investment but 
new expenditure, the same effects will be generated. So, in my 
opinion, what is very important for full employment is the overall 
expenditure of the economy as a whole and not public investment. 
My fourth point is that public investment is also subjected to 
cyclical fluctuations and if equation (4.1) were valid for public in- 
vestment, the results would be absolutely different. 
The HAAVELMO paper is very interesting, and, for me, quite 
thought provoking, but in my opinion the conclusion at which i 
arrives derives directly from hypotheses which are very questionable 
Haavelmo - pag