Hans Mayer, Untersuchung zu dem Grundgesetz der wirtschaftlichen Wertrechnung

Hans Mayer’s theoretical article, published in a volume nominally dated 1921 and apparently issued in 1922, examines a foundational disagreement within Austrian value theory: how to value a stock of homogeneous goods. It establishes the problem and critically assesses competing explanations, reserving a positive derivation for a subsequent essay. Mayer presents stock valuation as a question with implications for the wider theory of economic calculation:

Unter den verschiedenen Streitfragen, die innerhalb der modernen Wirtschaftstheorie bestehen, ist wohl die tiefstgehende die Frage nach dem Gesetze der Bewertung von Gütervorräten.

English translation: Among the various disputed questions that exist within modern economic theory, the most far-reaching is surely the question of the law governing the valuation of stocks of goods.

Böhm-Bawerk values a stock by adding the unequal utilities dependent on its successive units. Wieser’s Grenzgesetz instead multiplies the number of units by their marginal utility. Mayer resists treating these formulas as universally exclusive alternatives. Each may apply under particular conditions, while Wieser’s formula, he argues, corresponds more closely to ordinary economic activity.

The article’s methodological distinction is between demonstrating a rule’s actual applicability and supplying an adequate explanation of it. Refuting a proposed proof does not necessarily refute the phenomenon that the proof attempts to explain. Mayer considers earlier criticism deficient precisely here:

Diese erste Aufgabe, die Prüfung der Frage der tatsächlichen Geltung der beiden Wertformeln, hat die Kritik bisher ganz außer Acht gelassen.

English translation: This first task, the examination of the question of the actual validity of the two value formulas, criticism has hitherto entirely disregarded.

This distinction allows Mayer to accept substantial objections to Wieser’s reasoning without abandoning his valuation law. Conversely, a formally persuasive deduction from diminishing marginal utility may fail to explain practical calculation if its assumptions do not match the circumstances in which people allocate goods. Mayer’s qualified defense identifies the limits of Wieser’s achievement:

Aber es ist ihm nicht ganz gelungen, den Geltungsbereich seines Gesetzes zutreffend abzugrenzen und insbesondere die widerspruchslose Verbindung mit anderen allgemeinsten Gesetzen des wirtschaftlichen Handelns herzustellen.

English translation: But he did not entirely succeed in correctly delimiting the domain of validity of his law and, in particular, in establishing its contradiction-free connection with other most general laws of economic action.

Mayer organizes Wieser’s justifications around market observation, the practical function of economic calculation, and logical or psychological derivation. His critical survey considers objections by Kraus, Böhm-Bawerk, Schumpeter, Mises, Weiß, and Engländer, alongside defenses by Zuckerkandl, Clark, Fetter, and Broda. These discussions repeatedly distinguish evidence for a valuation practice from an explanation of why it holds.

Kraus’s objection, for example, shows that valuing any one unit at marginal utility does not establish that every unit can simultaneously receive that valuation. Mayer accepts the logical difficulty but denies that it settles the formula’s applicability. Similarly, uniform market prices do not prove equal subjective valuations: a socially formed price need not express the personal importance of each purchased unit.

In discussing Schumpeter, Mayer locates the disagreement beneath its mathematical presentation. Summing dependent utilities is not itself controversial; the question is whether those utilities must be unequal. If they are equal, summation yields the same result as Wieser’s multiplication rule. Conventional value curves therefore cannot decide the issue merely by incorporating unequal utilities into their construction. What requires investigation is the economic arrangement of goods and satisfactions that makes a particular calculation appropriate.

The temporal dimension emerges especially clearly in Mayer’s criticism of Fetter and Broda. Fetter’s appeal to marginal utility in an unchanged situation cannot explain valuations governing changes in supplies. Broda recognizes the difference between successive consumption and consumption all at once, but his replenishment hypothesis alters the stock under consideration. Mayer nevertheless credits the introduction of time into the discussion. The assumption that a stock is consumed uno actu, within one consumption interval, becomes a central obstacle to explaining ordinary economic planning. Temporal allocation offers a route toward reconciling the formulas, though the article leaves its positive derivation outstanding.

The closing argument also challenges Wieser’s psychological appeal to indifference toward already secured satisfactions. Rational allocation must compare alternative uses in pursuit of the greatest total utility. A convenient marginal-utility calculation is adequate only if it supports the same decisions. Mayer’s contribution is thus a critical reconstruction of the problem: preserve Wieser’s insight into practical calculation, separate it from defective proofs, and investigate the conditions—especially the temporal disposition of goods—under which competing valuation rules actually hold.