Richard Kerschagl · 1921
Richard Kerschagl’s first instalment of this critical literature survey assesses monetary writing published since 1914, selecting works for their theoretical innovations and practical significance rather than attempting exhaustive coverage. Its movement from competing definitions of money through wartime inflation and currency reform to international reconstruction gives the reviews a common intellectual direction: monetary theory must connect legal institutions and individual valuation with the functioning of the economy as a whole. Monetary reconstruction, correspondingly, cannot succeed through financial machinery alone.
The opening discussion of Hildebrand exposes the limits of legal formalism. Hildebrand distinguishes money from means of payment, ultimately reserving the former category for full-value metallic money even where paper legally discharges debts. Kerschagl treats this as a revealing counterpart to Knapp’s state theory:
Es fällt sehr schwer, sich in eine rein juristische Betrachtung hineinzudenken, welche, streng formal gehalten, schließlich beim Metallismus endet.
English translation: It is very difficult to enter into a purely juridical approach which, maintained in strictly formal terms, ultimately ends in metallism.
The objection concerns explanatory reach as much as doctrinal allegiance. Herzfelder’s mathematical theory receives a parallel criticism: ingenious calculations and unfamiliar terminology do not compensate for inadequate command of monetary theory and marginal utility. Dalberg’s studies, by contrast, earn praise for connecting depreciation with production and public credit, although Kerschagl situates his proposals for coordinated state management within their wartime circumstances. Knapp’s revised work receives a brief notice before the survey turns to the more substantial task of translating his legal account into economics.
Bendixen supplies the survey’s clearest methodological statement. Kerschagl follows his development from an insufficient understanding of subjective monetary value to an accomplished analysis of income and a critique of explanations that infer the workings of the whole economy from individual economic activity. He approvingly reproduces Bendixen’s demand for complementary perspectives:
Die Theorie des Geldes, wenn sie vollständig sein soll, erlaubt und verlangt eine Betrachtung sowohl vom öffentlich-rechtlichen wie vom gesamt-wirtschaftlichen wie auch vom einzel-wirtschaftlichen Standpunkt.
English translation: The theory of money, if it is to be complete, permits and requires examination from the standpoint of public law, of the economy as a whole, and of the individual economic unit.
This endorsement does not extend indiscriminately to policy. Kerschagl rejects Bendixen’s proposal to convert war loans into notes or treasury certificates while praising his treatment of inflation as an economic problem. The distinction between theoretical insight and practicable reform recurs throughout the survey.
Moll’s Logik des Geldes deepens the inquiry by asking what ultimately completes a monetary transaction or system. Neither precious metal considered intrinsically valuable, an endless succession of exchanges, nor Knapp’s circulation-based satisfaction adequately settles the question. Kerschagl values Moll’s turn toward ultimate satisfaction through goods and services, together with his treatment of confidence in money’s realizability. Gesell likewise receives a discriminating reading: his account of the division of labour and the functional usefulness of money is illuminating, but his mixture of theory and programme, especially depreciating money as a means of abolishing interest, invites sharp reservations.
The shorter notices extend these criteria across gold-reserve arrangements, cashless payments, depreciation’s effects on debts, foreign-exchange policy, and the currencies emerging from Austria-Hungary. Kerschagl criticizes Hilferding’s doctrinal rigidity and Hollitscher’s mortgage-backed note scheme; his notice of his own study emphasizes currency separation, bank liquidation, and the legal-economic status of stamped notes.
The international closing section makes economic reconstruction the decisive test. Fisher’s stabilization of purchasing power promises better conditions for international specialization. Vissering likewise makes currency stability foundational:
Die Stabilisierung der verschiedenen Währungen erscheint als notwendige Grundlage für den Wirtschaftsaufbau.
English translation: The stabilization of the various currencies appears as a necessary foundation for economic reconstruction.
Yet Kerschagl finds Vissering’s international gold-clearing institution and gold note primarily technical remedies. Cassel receives stronger approval for placing cooperation, international credit, the division of labour, and an end to state paper-money creation at the centre of recovery. A final notice of Christen links nominalist reform with anticipated postwar production and consumption difficulties. The instalment’s lasting interest lies in this evaluative hierarchy: institutional definitions and monetary devices matter, but their adequacy depends on explaining valuation, production, exchange, and the material conditions of recovery together.
This work was divided into 8 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 8 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian