Mises’s literature report surveys monetary theory, currency history, banking, and payment systems. Its governing concern is the difference between describing monetary arrangements and explaining their economic significance. Historical motives, purchasing power, and institutional risks supply recurring standards of judgment.
The opening review of Ludwig Stephinger’s study of Adam Müller questions the balance between exposition and criticism:
Weit mehr als die Hälfte des Buches wird von einer rein referierenden Darstellung von Müllers allgemeinen Grundanschauungen und seiner Geldtheorie eingenommen, auf die Beurteilung der Geldlehre hingegen entfällt kaum mehr als ein Viertel.
English translation: Far more than half of the book is taken up by a purely expository presentation of Müller's general fundamental views and of his theory of money, whereas scarcely more than a quarter falls to the appraisal of that monetary doctrine.
For Mises, the history of economic thought requires more than reporting doctrines and assessing them through contemporary terminology. Müller’s monetary ideas need to be situated in British monetary controversies, Austrian circumstances, and the intellectual and political world of Gentz and Romanticism. Sources, context, and influence matter alongside doctrinal classification.
The review of Johannes Scheffler’s American monetary history sharpens this methodological objection into a criticism of Knapp’s state theory of money. Mises acknowledges Scheffler’s success within his chosen framework:
Vom rein formalen Standpunkte aus betrachtet, ist ihm dies sicher auch gelungen.
English translation: Regarded from a purely formal standpoint, he has certainly succeeded in this.
Formal success, however, does not explain why monetary institutions change. Legal categories cannot substitute for an account of the interests and objectives driving policy:
Auch der Rechtshistoriker muß zu den Motiven der Rechtswandlung Stellung nehmen und ein Eingehen auf die staatliche Politik ist unmöglich ohne Rücksichtnahme auf die angestrebten Ziele.
English translation: The legal historian too must take a position on the motives of legal change, and an examination of state policy is impossible without regard to the ends pursued.
An explanation of American bimetallism centered on silver producers consequently misses its inflationary aims and wider agrarian and proletarian support. Monetary policy concerns the value of money; a theory that leaves purchasing power unexplained cannot adequately interpret it. The discussion of George Paul’s study of silver prices develops a related distinction: demand for silver used in subsidiary coins is demand for a manufacturing material, not equivalent to monetary demand under free coinage. Outside remaining silver-standard regions, silver’s commodity price must therefore be distinguished from money’s value.
Mises reserves judgment on Hugo Eckener’s labor-shortage explanation of crises pending fuller presentation. He welcomes the inexpensive edition of Jevons’s monetary and statistical essays, while regretting omissions. These notices distinguish hypotheses requiring demonstration from established analytical contributions.
The banking reviews foreground institutional coverage and financial vulnerability. Mises praises Oskar Stillich’s introduction to the stock exchange but faults Georg Obst’s banking survey for emphasizing note-issuing banks at the expense of credit banks. Studies by Paul Staehler and Siegmund Proebst usefully explain giro and cheque systems. Alfred Lansburgh’s statistics reveal the importance of small banks to modest depositors and the dangers obscured when customers treat any interest-paying institution as a savings bank. Large liabilities relative to proprietary funds, combined with assets committed for long periods, create exposure to runs.
Hans Hilbert’s study of insurers raises comparable concerns about mortgage investments concentrated in Berlin and its suburbs. Mises allows a role for legislation and supervision but rejects the assumption that directing insurers toward government securities necessarily improves liquidity. Supporting public borrowing and safeguarding financial institutions are distinct objectives.
Other reviews examine payment systems and public balances. Robert Beutler studies the Reichsbank’s public-law position, while A. Haffner treats Swiss note-bank legislation comparatively. Alfred Buschkiel’s account of Saxon public treasuries exposes administrative fragmentation; integrating public balances with banks could economize cash and strengthen metallic reserves. Discussions of Fritz Heber and Franz Zahnbrecher extend this institutional inquiry to postal banking, although Mises finds Heber’s explanation of divergent national outcomes insufficient.
The concluding notices extend the comparative range to Russian and Livonian banking and American paper money. Wesley Mitchell’s price statistics offer valuable evidence but still invite interpretation. W. Fajans’s doubts about Russia’s gold standard deserve consideration without eliminating uncertainty in economic prediction. Guillermo Subercaseaux’s paper-money theory suggests that money originating in credit may retain value through its monetary function after redemption ends. Throughout the report, Mises favors explanations connecting monetary value, historical purposes, and actual financial practice.
This work was divided into 21 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 21 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian