著者
吉田 暁
出版者
経済理論学会
雑誌
季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.45, no.2, pp.15-25, 2008-07-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

I have advocated the endogeneity of money supply following the views of M. Nishikawa and J. Itakura as well as those of N. Kalldor and B. J. Moor. As Moor appropriately wrote, "Currently the standard paradigm, especially in the United States, treats the central bank as determining the money base and thence the money stock. / Modern monetary theory has inherited an approach to money that was more appropriate in a world where money was a commodity, usually gold or silver, without fully recognizing the fundamental differences between commodity and credit money." These views, however, have not been widely accepted, especially among Japanese Marxian economists. Some of them have criticized the endogenous money supply theory. This article is a counter-criticism of some most criticizing arguments, mainly those of professor H. Noda and professor T. Itoh Marxian economists quite often express their views based on what Marx said, especially in "The Capital". Marx introduced capitalistic money through the logical developments of the value form, and said that gold would become the main material of money due to its physical characteristics. Then, it is not strange that their views on credit money are based on gold. They have regarded that the gold convertibility is the essence of credit money. They do not attach greater importance to the causes of issuance or withdrawal of credit money, that is, the connection between the supply of credit and the supply of money. In the modern world gold as money does not exist. But they tacitly regard fiat money as a replacement of gold, in other word, exogenous money. Another point I stressed in this article is that those who are severely critical to the endogenous money supply theory misunderstand Marx's logical way of writing. In "The Capital" vol. 1 and 2, there are no credit systems, no credit money. There is only commodity money (gold) introduced at the money theory (vol. 1). At the reproduction charts (vol. 2), his premise is each capitalist has a certain amount of money which is needed for the purchase of materials and the payment of wages etc. Credit system and credit money are the problems of vol. 3, and unfortunately Marx could not complete the credit theory. But some of those who criticize the endogenous money supply theory quote from vol. 1 or 2 where, actually, only commodity money (gold) exists. I also stressed that Phillips-type credit creation theory (multiplier theory)is not valid, especially in the world of credit money. Revival of Macleod or Hahn=Schumpeter type theory is very important. Today's monetary policies of major central banks are not money supply control, but money market interest rates control that affects the public demand of funds. The starting points of the credit creation are loans of banks to firms and household by crediting to their deposit accounts. At this point banks do not need surplus money. Monies are created by the action of banks, that is Macleod-type credit creation. When the cash demand increases, central banks should accommodate. If a central bank worries about the level of the economic expansion and the increase of prices, it can affect demand of funds and then affect prices by interest rates control policy. Today's monetary policies of major central banks are money market interest rates control. Lastly, I stressed the importance of the independence of central banks. Some people might question that the central bank independence is against the democratic procedures of policy determination. But, in my opinion, there is a big difference between the monetary policy and other policies of the governments. While monetary policies are executed through financial transactions in the market, other governmental policies are executed as an exercise of administrative powers.
著者
大野 隆 西 洋
出版者
経済理論学会
雑誌
季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.47, no.4, pp.6-18, 2011-01-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

Recently, there are many papers using the framework of the Stock-Flow Consistent model (hereafter SFC) in the refereed journals. However, no studied has ever been attempted in Japan. While there is one textbook, a Japanese translation of Introduction to Post-Keynesian Economics, it explains the balance- sheet matrix and the transactions flow matrix only. Therefore, we endeavor to explain the intuitive framework of SFC, and give a way to construct this model in Japanese. One of the characteristics of the SFC model is the stock and flows are integrated into an analysis; all sectors and financial assets are included in the model so that there is no black box in the economic transactions in the accounting sense. In this paper, first, we survey the developments of the Kaleckian model and the Minskian model to consider the significance of the SFC model. SFC model plays an important role to integrate implications derived from these models. Second, we construct a simple SFC model based on Doss Santos and Zezza (2008), and find the following results from simulations. The SFC model can explain not only the wage-led growth regime but also the profit-led growth regime. In addition, this model can also explain the normal regime and puzzling regime that the Minskian model has presented so far. In many cases, these results depend on the values of various parameters. Thus, we show that the SFC model can generate various regimes concerning income distribution-growth regime and debt-growth regime.
著者
伊藤 誠
出版者
経済理論学会
雑誌
季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.49, no.2, pp.6-15, 2012-07-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

This essay examines contemporary arguments for basic income in view of Marxian theories of political economy. In the first section, it begins with a general definition of basic income as a regular income publicly supplied to all individual social members without means test. This idea has gathered academic and social attention in Western Europe since the 1980s. It reflected a deadlock of traditional welfare policies, as individualistic life style (such as single mothers and elderly singles) became widespread, as well as increasing irregular workers with unstable jobs. It has been supported not just by social democrats among other various ideologists but also by influential Marxian theorists as a policy device possibly to guarantee real freedom for all in a future society via social democracy against the Soviet model. When the idea is introduced into Japan after two decades, however, it is argued mainly within a framework of reformation of the existing social security system in a capitalist society. The possible academic contributions from the view of Japanese Marxian political economy to this contemporary issue still remain to be explored. In the second section, a history of this idea is briefly reviewed. Two types of social thoughts which flowed into the contemporary arguments for basic income are discernible. The first type originates from T. Pain, asserting social need and legitimacy of basic income redistribution upon the premise of capitalist market economy. The second type assumes either centrally planned or market socialist society where some sorts of basic income for social members as communal owners of means of production are easily and duly to be realized. However, full basic income, which is sufficient to maintain an ordinary economic life for individual persons by itself, would not be realizable theoretically even in models of market socialism, not to mention capitalist societies, so long as it would seriously damage functions of labour market and incentive for market labour. In the third section, affinities between ideas of basic income and Marxian political economy are investigated. For instance, Marx's own image of future society beyond capitalism as 'association of free individuals' is clearly closer to the contemporary socialist idea of basic income to achieve real freedom for all individuals rather than to the Soviet model of society. Marxian analysis of contemporary capitalism must serve to clarify the historical necessity and feasibility of basic income as an advanced form of social welfare policy, better and deeper than any other economic schools. On the other hand, contemporary arguments for basic income request reconsideration on some of Marxian thoughts and theories. For example, although Marx formulated that an ideal rule of redistribution 'from each according to one's ability, to each according to his need' is realizable only at the second higher phase of communist society, contemporary Marxian economists began to be aware that redistribution according to one's necessity could be at least gradually and partially realizable already in the form of advanced social security system or its reform program as basic income. Further, if Marx's theoretical treatment of skilled or complex labour is reconsidered as suggested in this essay, Marxian labour theory of value would easily gain affinity with the idea of basic income demanding fundamentally egalitarian redistribution of income. Thus this essay attempts to show that Marxian basic theories of value, surplus-value and economic crisis can serve well as a basic frame of reference also for examining the historical significance of contemporary arguments on basic income.
著者
田上 孝一
出版者
経済理論学会
雑誌
季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.48, no.2, pp.40-49, 2011-07-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

The aim of this paper is to compare Wataru Hiromatsu's theory of reification with Karl Marx's theory of reification. Hiromatsu insists that his theory is the genuine interpretation of Marx. So I examine Hiromatsu's remark. In this paper, I mainly concern the rightness of Hiromatsu's interpretation of Marx. I do not concern the validity of Hiromatsu's theory on the contemporary society. In section one, I doubt the Japanese translation of reification. In original German word, reification is Versachlichung. In ordinary Japanese translation, Versachlichung is "Butsushoka". Butsusho means phenomenal thing. Ka means transformation. So Butsushoka means something is transformed to phenomenal thing. But this meaning cannot tell the conceptual content of Versachlichung. The stem of Versachlichung is Sache. Sache is the counter word of Person. So Versachlicung means that Person is transformed to Sache, in English, personality is transformed to thing. It means not epistemological aspect but ontological situation. So Butsushoka is not correct. "Butsukenka" is correct. Because "butsuken" correctly means Sache. That is why I insist that Versachlichung should be translated into not Butsushoka but Butsukenka. In section two, I explain the core concept of Marx's theory of reification. The basic usage of reification by Marx is "reification of personality and personalization of thing". The conceptual dimension of reification in Marx's case is not epistemological but ontological. By the theory of reification Marx tries to clarify the real upside-down structure of capitalism. For Marx capitalism is the society in which labor's personality becomes a thing like goods. Capitalism is not slavery. But in fact, it is the wage-slave society. Marx charges this fact by the theory of reification. In short, for Marx reification is the essence of capitalism. Marx also charges the fetishism in capitalism. The concept of fetishism in Marx's case is expression of reification. It is also phenomenon of reification. The relationships of reification and fetishism are "cause and effect" and "essence and phenomenon". And reification is also alienation. It is one dimension of alienation. Marx insists that capitalist is arisen by alienated labor. The alienation of labor of workers from his/her own labor process is cause of capitalism. So alienation is cause of reification. That is why alienation and reification and fetishism are mutual "cause and effect" and "essence and phenomenon" relationships. In section three, I examine Hiromatsu's theory of reification. Hiromatsu tells about reification but he does not analyze Versachlichung. Only he analyses is not Versachlichung but Fetischismus. But fetishism is only a expression of reification. Owing to analyze fetishism we cannot clarify reification. Why has he this illusion? Because he thinks reification and fetishism as being the same. Through this reason he one-sidedly looks reification as epistemological concept. For Hiromatsu, reification as the real upside-down structure is "the vulgar reification". But Marx himself has this vulgar idea. Hiromatsu's reification is a very odd theory. Conclusion: Hiromatsu's theory of reification is a distortion of Marx's theory of reification. Hiromatsu himself thinks that his theory is the genuine interpretation of Marx. But in fact, Hiromatsu's theory has nothing to do with Marx. So Hiromatsu's theory of reification is not Marxist one but his own philosophical fantasy.
著者
鍋島 直樹
出版者
経済理論学会
雑誌
季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.48, no.4, pp.75-85, 2012-01-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

Nowadays, mainstream macroeconomics has evolved into a new framework, which is labeled "new consensus macroeconomics", by integrating research results both of new classicals and of new Keynesians. It is said that oppositions between schools of thought over the analytical framework have nearly disappeared within mainstream macroeconomics today. It is notable that the new consensus recognizes the exogeneity of the shortterm interest rate and the endogeneity of the money supply. Nevertheless, the new consensus model exhibits strong classical features. In the model, the longrun equilibrium of the economy is exclusively determined by the supply-side factors, and effective demand has no influence on it. Therefore, in the long-run, monetary policy only impacts on the rate of inflation and doesn't improve the levels of production and employment. Further, proponents of the new consensus accept Wicksell's concept of the "natural rate of interest", and they consider that the departure of the market rate of interest from the natural rate gives rise to the movement of the aggregate price level. In addition, they inherit Wicksell's idea that the natural rate of interest acts as a center of gravitation. In contrast, Post Keynesian economists argue that aggregate demand not only determines the short-run output, but also plays a crucial role in directing the long-run growth path of the economy. Hence government economic policies have lasting effects on the real economy. Furthermore, Post Keynesians deny the existence of a unique natural rate of interest, and they maintain that the interest rate determined by monetary factors constitutes a center of gravitation. We can regard the rivalry between the new consensus and the Post Keynesian views as a modern manifestation of the rivalry between "real analysis" and "monetary analysis" that has shaped the history of economics. Today, Post Keynesian economics makes great contributions to the theoretical foundation of monetary analysis that believes capitalist economies inherently contain monetary and financial instability.
著者
内藤 敦之
出版者
経済理論学会
雑誌
季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.44, no.1, pp.66-76, 2007-04-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

Post Keynesian endogenous money supply theory appeared as one of the modern theory of credit money some twenty years ago. In recent years, while it keeping close relationship with French and Italian monetary circuit theory, the domain of the theory has expanded gradually. With regard to the role of government or state, the theory of endogenous money pays attention to the central bank which offers the means of settlement between commercial banks and plays the role of lender of last resort, but actually the state establishes money, and practices the control of money. In this respect Chartalism or state theory of money revive in the context of Post Keynesian in recent years. The relationship between the theory of endogenous money and Chartalism comes into question, because in the theory of endogenous money money supply is endogenous, while in Chartalism at a first glance exogenous money supply by the state is assumed. The two theories have not only a background of Post Keynesian, but also both theories have complementarities. That is, the theory of endogenous money deals the money of private level, and Chartalism argues the money of state level. However, both theories share nominalism especially in the theory of nature of money. In Chartalism the nature of money is regarded as establishment of money by the state, and Chartalistic money is a nominal one which has basically no relation to the real value, in the theory of endogenous money bank money also does not presuppose the relation to the real value of money. In this way, both theories share common ground, but there are differences. First, in the theory of nature of money the definition of money and various points are different. Second, both theories diverge in the role of the state. In the theory of endogenous money although the role of the state is generally assumed in relation to the function of central bank, the relationship between money and state, and the problem of Chartalism is not thoroughly examined. The placement of the state in Chartalism is unique and different from the theory of endogenous money. In this paper, aiming at clarifying what relationship both theories have, two points are examined. First, we compare both theories in the theory of nature of money, and we consider in what significance money in the real world is Chartalistic. Second, we investigate the role of the state, especially the function of the central bank respectively. The conclusions are three-fold. First, the theory of endogenous money and Chartalism share nominalism in the theory of nature of money. Nominalism is important in that it is a basis of the view against commodity theory of money. Second, two theories are different except nominalism of money in the theory of nature of money. In the theory of endogenous money the state plays important role in that it designate money as means of final settlement, this is the significance of Chartalism in the theory of endogenous money. Third, the role of the state in the theory of endogenous money moreover emerges as a function of central bank. The function of lender of last resort which is emphasized especially in Post Keynesian theory plays important role which maintains monetary and financial system, while in Chartalism central bank plays the role of bank of government, and does not conflict with central bank in the theory of endogenous money, but it has complementary function. Particularly both theories adopt the operation of short term interest rate as a measure of policy, which plays important role in the control of money.
著者
小林 陽介
出版者
経済理論学会
雑誌
季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.49, no.3, pp.90-95, 2012-10-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

Recently there has been a great deal of research generated focusing on the Financialization-Approach. However, most of the literature on financialization emphasizes the influence of the financial sector, and pays less attention to the real economy. This paper examines how to bring the dynamism of real economy into the Financialization- Approach. Firstly, I investigate the relationship between corporations and finance, focusing on the literature of corporate governance. According to the research by Lazonick and O'Sullivan, the management strategy of U.S. corporations changed from "retain and reinvest" to "downsize and distribute" after the 1980s. U.S. corporations reduced their employment, and distributed cash to stockholders, and increased dividend payments and stock repurchases to raise their stock prices. This change arose from the formation of the "market for corporate control", which is explained mainly from the following: 1) Worsening performance of corporations and agency theory, 2) Increase of the stock holding by institutional investors, and 3) Development of junk bond market. However, this change is explained only from the influence of finance. The activeness of corporations is ignored. Secondly, I investigate the situation that U.S. corporations faced in 1980s to focus on the corporate action. They faced the shift in industrial structure. Key industries, such as steel, automobile and household electronic appliances, lost competitive power, while high-technology, energy and service industries maintained competitive power. Many corporations restructured their business formations to adapt to this shift by mergers and acquisitions. While raising stock prices is a result of financial influence in the literature of financialization, raising stock prices has a positive meaning for companies which perform mergers and acquisitions. Companies can perform mergers and acquisitions advantageously when their stock prices are high. Increase of dividend payments and stock repurchases can be understood to be a result of corporate action which adapts to the shift in industrial structure by mergers and acquisitions. Finally, I discuss the corporate image which should be included in the Financialization-Approach. The corporation should be assumed the active one which pursues profits, not the passive one assumed in the former literature. This is the starting point of an attempt to bring the dynamism of real economy into the Financialization-Approach.
著者
山口 拓美
出版者
経済理論学会
雑誌
季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.41, no.4, pp.13-24, 2005-01-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

According to Marxian political economy, exploitation means extracting surplus labor. But Marx himself used the term "exploitation" in more general sense also. In his Capital,Volume III, Marx wrote that workers are exploited when capitalists save labor conditions at the expense of the workers. So we can find in Capital two definitions of exploitation: the narrow definition as extracting surplus labor and the broad definition as treating workers badly. With respect to the broad definition of exploitation, I think it is based on Kantian moral principle that obligates us not to treat other people merely as means for our own ends. Kant limited his moral principle to human beings. However, philosophers in today's society extend the principle to nonhuman beings, especially to animals. I think this view of exploitation is important for criticizing contemporary capitalism, because it has relevance for contemporary problems, such as sexual exploitation of women and children, exploitation of nature, and exploitation of animals. Among these problems, animal exploitation is the hottest topic on the political agenda in Europe. The European Treaties recognize animals as sentient beings, and the European Community has been improving animal welfare standard for the past two decades. Moreover the EC made a specific submission to the WTO Committee on Agriculture on "Animal welfare and agricultural trade". Today, animal exploitation is an issue of growing importance in global capitalism. This paper explores the moral basis of Marx's view of exploitation, considers the exploitation of nature, and then discusses the exploitation of animals in today's commercial agriculture.
著者
大野 隆 西 洋
出版者
経済理論学会
雑誌
季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.47, no.4, pp.6-18, 2011-01-20

Recently, there are many papers using the framework of the Stock-Flow Consistent model (hereafter SFC) in the refereed journals. However, no studied has ever been attempted in Japan. While there is one textbook, a Japanese translation of Introduction to Post-Keynesian Economics, it explains the balance- sheet matrix and the transactions flow matrix only. Therefore, we endeavor to explain the intuitive framework of SFC, and give a way to construct this model in Japanese. One of the characteristics of the SFC model is the stock and flows are integrated into an analysis; all sectors and financial assets are included in the model so that there is no black box in the economic transactions in the accounting sense. In this paper, first, we survey the developments of the Kaleckian model and the Minskian model to consider the significance of the SFC model. SFC model plays an important role to integrate implications derived from these models. Second, we construct a simple SFC model based on Doss Santos and Zezza (2008), and find the following results from simulations. The SFC model can explain not only the wage-led growth regime but also the profit-led growth regime. In addition, this model can also explain the normal regime and puzzling regime that the Minskian model has presented so far. In many cases, these results depend on the values of various parameters. Thus, we show that the SFC model can generate various regimes concerning income distribution-growth regime and debt-growth regime.
著者
小林 陽介
出版者
経済理論学会
雑誌
季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.50, no.4, pp.84-95, 2014

<p>The aim of this paper is to analyze the process of the financialization of the American economy in 1980s, focusing on the relationship between corporations and financial institutions. In part I, I survey the literature of the financialization approach. One approach is to focus on the increase of financial investment by non-financial corporations. This approach points out that non-financial corporations invest internal funds to financial assets to avoid the downward tendency of profitrates. This approach is limited by scholars understanding that corporations invest in financial assets solely aiming at financial profits. The other approach is to focus on the growing influence of the capital market and the increase of financial payments by non-financial corporations. This approach emphasizes the creation of the "market for corporate control", driven by the rise of institutional investors, information economics and the formation of junk-bond market. This approach has the limitation that the actions of industrial corporations are not included. Based on these literatures, the approach of this paper is to regard investing equity as the way to control another corporation and include corporate actions which pursue profits. This approach is to focus on the transformation of "finance capital". Originally, "finance capital" had a viewpoint of finance related with industry. However, these days, "finance capital" is used in a sense that financial institutions seek financial and speculative profits. In this paper, I focus on the process of the transformation of "finance capital" from the classical type to casino type. In part II, I trace the transformation of the American economy after World War II, and corporate restructuring in 1980s. In the post-war era, the American economy was characterized by the administered price system. Administered price was the price which added reasonable profit to cost. Because of this, corporations could get stable profit. Under this system, corporate actions were characterized by avoidance of price competition, demand of protective policies, and investment in former type equipment. In the depression in early 1980s, many corporations fell into the red Most of them changed the action pattern. They restructured business formations by mergers and acquisitions(M&A). For examples, U. S. Steel acquired Marathon Oil in 1982 to change its main business from steel to oil production. Financial institutions took part in the M&A boom. Investment banks acted as M&A advisor. In merger mania, they treated bridge loan financing, and invested LBO equity funds. Commercial banks acted as loan lender. In merger mania, they acted as M&A advisor. In part III, I explain the consequences of merger boom in 1980s and examine the transformation of the relationship between corporations and financial institutions. Financial institutions expanded profits from M&A related businesses because such businesses were very profitable. In the process of merger boom, the relationship between corporations and financial institutions had transformed from "relationship oriented" to "arms-length oriented". As for investment banks, large corporations had maintained the continuous relationship with specific investment banks over a long period of time. However, in 1980s, most corporations came to use the investment banks which presented the most advantageous conditions. This was because there were many chances for corporations to change investment banks in the merger boom. The conclusion of this paper is as follows: 1) American corporations moved their capital to advantageous industries by using financial markets. 2) Financial institutions could expand profits by helping corporations which needed M & A to overcome the difficulties in that days. 3) In the process of merger booms, the relationship between</p><p>(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)</p>
著者
内藤 敦之
出版者
経済理論学会
雑誌
季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.44, no.1, pp.66-76, 2007

Post Keynesian endogenous money supply theory appeared as one of the modern theory of credit money some twenty years ago. In recent years, while it keeping close relationship with French and Italian monetary circuit theory, the domain of the theory has expanded gradually. With regard to the role of government or state, the theory of endogenous money pays attention to the central bank which offers the means of settlement between commercial banks and plays the role of lender of last resort, but actually the state establishes money, and practices the control of money. In this respect Chartalism or state theory of money revive in the context of Post Keynesian in recent years. The relationship between the theory of endogenous money and Chartalism comes into question, because in the theory of endogenous money money supply is endogenous, while in Chartalism at a first glance exogenous money supply by the state is assumed. The two theories have not only a background of Post Keynesian, but also both theories have complementarities. That is, the theory of endogenous money deals the money of private level, and Chartalism argues the money of state level. However, both theories share nominalism especially in the theory of nature of money. In Chartalism the nature of money is regarded as establishment of money by the state, and Chartalistic money is a nominal one which has basically no relation to the real value, in the theory of endogenous money bank money also does not presuppose the relation to the real value of money. In this way, both theories share common ground, but there are differences. First, in the theory of nature of money the definition of money and various points are different. Second, both theories diverge in the role of the state. In the theory of endogenous money although the role of the state is generally assumed in relation to the function of central bank, the relationship between money and state, and the problem of Chartalism is not thoroughly examined. The placement of the state in Chartalism is unique and different from the theory of endogenous money. In this paper, aiming at clarifying what relationship both theories have, two points are examined. First, we compare both theories in the theory of nature of money, and we consider in what significance money in the real world is Chartalistic. Second, we investigate the role of the state, especially the function of the central bank respectively. The conclusions are three-fold. First, the theory of endogenous money and Chartalism share nominalism in the theory of nature of money. Nominalism is important in that it is a basis of the view against commodity theory of money. Second, two theories are different except nominalism of money in the theory of nature of money. In the theory of endogenous money the state plays important role in that it designate money as means of final settlement, this is the significance of Chartalism in the theory of endogenous money. Third, the role of the state in the theory of endogenous money moreover emerges as a function of central bank. The function of lender of last resort which is emphasized especially in Post Keynesian theory plays important role which maintains monetary and financial system, while in Chartalism central bank plays the role of bank of government, and does not conflict with central bank in the theory of endogenous money, but it has complementary function. Particularly both theories adopt the operation of short term interest rate as a measure of policy, which plays important role in the control of money.
著者
山本 英司
出版者
経済理論学会
雑誌
季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.47, no.4, pp.42-52, 2011-01-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

This article reargues my book, Kalecki's Politic l Economy, which was published in 2009 and a revised version of my doctoral dissertation submitted to Kyoto University in 2003. The book was reviewed at two academic meetings and two book reviews were published. Replying to them, this article summarizes the gist of my book and corrects some errors if necessary. My book consists of eight chapters. Apart from chapter 1 of "introduction of Kalecki," it may be divided into three parts: Kalecki's studies in capitalist economies, Kalecki's comparative economic studies, and Kalecki as a "Marxist." First, this article examines Kalecki's biographical problems. Kalecki's life may be divided into three parts: from his birth in 1899 until his leaving Poland in 1936, his exile days until his returning home in late 1954 or early 1955, and the rest of his life until his death in 1970. Although my book mainly used Kalecki's chronological personal history by Osiatynski in Collected Works of Michal Kalecki, it has been found not to be necessarily correct. So this article describes the true story as possible. Second, this article examines Kalecki's studies in capitalist economies, focusing Essay on the Business Cycle Theory (1933) in particular. Essay is very famous as the evidence of Kalecki's priority over Keynes's General Theory (1936). But it was written in Polish, and has been known through a shortened English version, which has led to rather limited understanding of the work. The publication of the English version of Collected Works of Michal Kalecki enabled the detailed examination of the full version of Essay. Here is the result. Third, this article examines Kalecki's comparative economic studies. Kalecki studied socialist and developing economies as well as capitalist economies. This article presents a perspective from which those three economic systems should be viewd. In addition to that, Kalecki's version of "the presuppositions of Harvey Road" is mentioned. Forth, this article examines Kalecki as a "Marxist." Although a lot of comparative studies on him with Keynes have been presented, ones with Marx were relatively rare. Kalecki had never been a member of the communist party, nor an orthodox and dogmatic Marxist. Nevertheless, this article tries to describe Kalecki as a Marxist in a sense, and claims that his interpretation of historical materialism enabled his non-dogmatic and realistic analysis of the transformation of capitalism. Finally, remaining themes are considered. I am going to pay attention to Post-Keynesian ecoomics, especially Kaleckian macroeconomics. I must admit that application to modern economy should not be forgotten.