Ludwig von Mises, Neuere Schriften über Geld- und Bankwesen (1908)

Mises’s literature report surveys forty-one publications on monetary theory, currency policy, banking institutions, and financial practice. It proceeds from theoretical works to the German money market, Austrian and Swiss developments, practical manuals, and specialized international studies. Its unity lies in a critical standard rather than a single program of reform: monetary scholarship must connect theories of value with the actual organization of payments and credit, while institutional history must explain economic relationships rather than merely accumulate documents. Mises repeatedly distinguishes a book’s usefulness as a source of information from the validity of its theoretical conclusions or policy recommendations.

The opening reviews establish this standard. Friedrich Hoffmann’s history of monetary-value theories disappoints because its excerpts and scattered judgments do not reconstruct the relationships among competing explanations. Organizing authors by successive periods of currency policy substitutes an external chronology for conceptual analysis:

Dadurch zerreißt er den Stoff vollständig und versperrt sich den Weg zu einer einheitlichen Auffassung und Gruppierung der verschiedenen Ansichten.

English translation: In this way he completely fragments the material and blocks his own path to a unified understanding and grouping of the various views.

For Mises, monetary theories must be examined in relation to theories of value and price. Hoffmann’s exclusion of paper money and metallic money without free coinage therefore removes essential evidence, including American inflationist arguments. The literature on paper money also matters for understanding freely mintable metallic money; separating these domains prevents an adequate theoretical history.

Edwin Walter Kemmerer’s reconstruction of quantity theory receives a more sympathetic assessment. Its important move is to explain changes in prices through the effects of changes in money and goods supplies on subjective valuations. Yet Mises identifies an unresolved difficulty: how can the elastic components of modern payments be incorporated into the money supply? Kemmerer’s statistical investigation of American developments between 1879 and 1904 likewise fails to provide satisfactory measures of circulation velocity and monetary demand. Nevertheless, one insight earns explicit approval:

Hingegen hat Verfasser sehr mit Recht die große Bedeutung des Vertrauens für das gesamte Gebiet der deposit currency hervorgehoben.

English translation: On the other hand, the author has very rightly emphasized the great importance of confidence for the entire sphere of deposit currency.

The point links subjective valuation to banking institutions: modern monetary analysis cannot treat deposit-based payments as a mechanically fixed stock. Despite its deficiencies, Kemmerer’s work remains a contribution with which future theorists must engage.

The German section applies similar discrimination to reform proposals. Mises sharply criticizes Eichholtz’s hostility to large banks, Arendt’s inflationism, and Martin’s advocacy of increased silver circulation. He is more receptive to Bendixen’s practical knowledge than to his theoretical dependence on Knapp. Legal-tender status for Reichsbank notes, a stronger foreign-exchange portfolio, and expanded issuing powers could, Mises argues, coexist with gold convertibility and free private coinage. His opposition to “gold fetishism” thus distinguishes maintaining the gold standard from insisting on gold’s physical circulation throughout domestic payments. The German bankers’ congress supplies evidence that professional opinion was moving toward this distinction. Reviews of cheque legislation and banking surveys also recognize competent work without attributing theoretical originality to it.

Prion’s study of bill discounting provides the most sustained institutional discussion. Its central finding is that rising bill circulation conceals a transformation in function: bills are increasingly used by smaller businesses and agriculture, while credit bills grow relative to bills arising from commodity transactions. Credit bills can expand without the restraint imposed by an underlying exchange of goods. This development also changes the Reichsbank’s assets, undermining the assumptions behind legislation that privileged bills as backing for notes.

Mises nevertheless rejects the inference that the Reichsbank should recover its market position by competing more extensively with large commercial banks. Their importance rests substantially on long-term lending, even when disguised in short-term forms. Following them would sacrifice the central bank’s distinctive stabilizing capacity:

Daß die Reichsbank ihnen auf diesen Wegen nicht folgen kann, ohne dem deutschen Geldmarkt die letzte Stütze, die ihm die verhältnismäßig große Liquidität ihrer Anlagen bietet, zu entziehen, liegt auf der Hand.

English translation: It is obvious that the Reichsbank cannot follow them along these paths without depriving the German money market of its last support, which the relatively high liquidity of its assets provides.

The Austrian section records comparatively sparse scholarship, praising Łopuszański’s institutional expertise and Zahner’s popular account of the postal savings bank. Arguments derived from Knapp against introducing cash redemption add no new perspective. In Switzerland, Gygax’s history of the Bank in St. Gallen exemplifies successful scholarship: documentary richness supports an account of the bank’s place in regional economic development and the transformation of Swiss note issuance. Blaum’s Knappian monetary history offers little independent innovation, whereas Altherr’s case for leaving the Latin Monetary Union merits attention for its evidence and treatment of capital flows.

The concluding surveys broaden the report’s comparative reach. Banking manuals are judged by their teaching and technical usefulness. Calmes’s Luxembourg study shows how official coin tariffs and subsequent practice produced a distinct accounting unit, illustrating Gresham’s law. Soltau’s French colonial banks complicate conventional assumptions about permissible note-bank business, though Mises cautions against transferring conclusions from small colonies to large states. American banking legislation and Schumacher’s account of the 1907 crisis further connect institutional arrangements with monetary instability. Across these varied judgments, the report’s enduring interest lies in its insistence that neither theoretical allegiance nor abundant documentation suffices: persuasive monetary scholarship must explain how valuations, legal rules, payment instruments, and bank assets interact.