Alfred Amonn, Ricardo als Begründer der theoretischen Nationalökonomie (1924)

Amonn’s 1924 book is a single-author theoretical introduction to Ricardo’s Principles and a compact reconstruction of the basic problems of economic theory. Written for the centenary of Ricardo’s death, it treats Ricardo less as a finished authority than as the necessary starting point for a renewed theoretical economics.

Nicht, Ricardo zu ersetzen, wie ein neuerer Systembildner geglaubt hat, ist die Aufgabe der Zeit auf unserem Wissensgebiet, sondern, seine Gedanken zu verstehen und fortzubilden.

English translation: The task of the age in our field of knowledge is not to replace Ricardo, as a more recent system-builder has believed, but to understand and further develop his ideas.

The work’s central thesis is double: Ricardo founded theoretical economics by isolating its proper problem-field, but he also misled it by taking the labor-value principle as an unexamined axiom. Amonn’s structure follows this thesis. The first sections define the object of theory, value, and wealth; the middle sections test Ricardo’s labor theory through labor differences, capital, profit, rent, prices, and wages; the closing sections reject the labor principle and rebuild value theory from relative scarcity, equilibrium, Cassel’s equations, and marginal utility.

In Ricardos „Principles“ tritt uns zum erstenmal in logisch bestimmter, wenn auch nicht völlig klarer und eindeutiger Weise der Problemkreis entgegen, welchen man als wesentlichen Inhalt der Theoretischen Nationalökonomie betrachten muß.

English translation: In Ricardo's "Principles" we encounter for the first time, in a logically definite though not entirely clear and unambiguous manner, the set of problems which must be regarded as the essential content of theoretical economics.

Amonn’s first conceptual move is to reinterpret Ricardo’s “distribution problem” as a formal exchange-value problem. Theoretical economics does not explain the material justice or historical magnitude of class shares, but the mechanism by which rents, profits, wages, and prices are formed under exchange. This also lets him separate Ricardo from Smith and Say: Smith’s problem is wealth; Ricardo’s is exchange value.

Wenn sie vom „Wert“ sprechen, so weiß man nicht immer, ob sie „Gebrauchswert“ oder „Tauschwert“ meinen, wenn Ricardo von „Wert“ spricht, weiß man, was für einen „Wert“ er meint: den Tauschwert.

English translation: When they speak of "value" one does not always know whether they mean "use value" or "exchange value"; when Ricardo speaks of "value" one knows which "value" he means: exchange value.

The book’s long critical core argues that Ricardo confused a reliable indicator with a causal ground. In simple cases, goods made by equal labor may exchange equally, but labor quantity is not the real cause of value. The same error reappears in Ricardo’s treatment of different labor qualities, capital durability, profits, rent, and wages.

Die Verwechselung zwischen Erkenntnisgrund und Realgrund: das ist, auf eine logische Formel gebracht, der Fehler in jener Argumentation, und das heißt, in der Argumentation der Arbeitswerttheorie überhaupt.

English translation: The confusion between the ground of cognition and the real ground: that, reduced to a logical formula, is the flaw in that argument, and that means, in the argument of the labor theory of value in general.

Amonn is especially sharp on Ricardo’s auxiliary constructions. Different kinds of labor cannot be reduced to homogeneous “labor quantities”; capital profit cannot explain deviations from labor value because profit itself is already a value phenomenon; rent is not caused by cultivation of inferior land but by scarcity of land relative to demand; and the distinction between “natural” and “market” price obscures the single market process in which prices are formed.

Der Wert der Güter „hängt“ nicht und niemals „ab“ von der zu ihrer Produktion erforderlichen Arbeitsmenge.

English translation: The value of goods does not, and never does, "depend" on the quantity of labor required for their production.

Yet Amonn’s book is not an anti-Ricardian dismissal. Its relevance lies in showing how much of modern theory can be recovered from Ricardo once the false principle is removed. The true principle, Amonn argues, is already glimpsed by Ricardo in his remarks on scarce goods, but then abandoned too quickly.

Dieses Prinzip ist das der Abhängigkeit des Wertes der Güter von ihrer „relativen Seltenheit“.

English translation: This principle is that of the dependence of the value of goods on their "relative scarcity".

Amonn’s positive reconstruction makes scarcity relative to human desire the basis of all exchange value. Labor matters not because it “creates” value, but because labor itself is scarce and can reduce, without abolishing, the scarcity of goods. Capital is accumulated labor and land-use; interest expresses the higher scarcity of already completed products compared with future services; rent is the value of scarce land-use.

Jedes tauschbare Ding („Gut“) hat Wert, das im Verhältnis zu unserem Begehr selten ist.

English translation: Every exchangeable thing ("good") has value which is scarce in relation to our desire for it.

The final move is systemic. No single “natural wage” or labor unit can anchor the economy. Values form together as an interdependent equilibrium of supplies, demands, production coefficients, and valuations. Cassel supplies the formal equilibrium scheme; marginal utility supplies the missing principle governing demand functions. Thus Amonn’s Ricardo is both founder and warning: he founded the right theoretical problem, but only a scarcity-and-equilibrium theory can solve it.

Es gibt nur eine „Gleichgewichtsbedingung“, aber keinen festen Punkt.

English translation: There is only an "equilibrium condition," but no fixed point.