Mises’s German review article surveys scholarship on monetary theory, banking history, financial law, and banking practice. Its judgments distinguish theoretical explanation from historical reconstruction and practical instruction. Monetary doctrine must account for its relation to prices, while empirical scholarship earns praise through reliable evidence, careful organization, and appropriately limited claims.
The opening criticism of Friedrich Bendixen establishes the theoretical standard. Bendixen excludes monetary value from modern monetary theory:
Bendixen stellt die Behauptung auf: „Die Frage nach dem Wert des Geldes gehört nicht in eine moderne Geldlehre“, sie ist „metallistischer Atavismus“.
English translation: Bendixen puts forward the assertion: "The question of the value of money does not belong in a modern theory of money"; it is "metallistic atavism".
For Mises, treating monetary value as a reflection of known prices leaves the origin of those prices unexplained. Bendixen’s conception of money as an entitlement to compensation for prior services therefore requires a compatible account of exchange ratios. Mises makes that explanatory burden a condition of further debate:
Wenn Bendixen uns eine solche Lehre von der Entstehung der Austauschverhältnisse der Güter bringen wird, dann wird es Zeit sein, auch seine Geldtheorie zu diskutieren.
English translation: When Bendixen shall bring us such a doctrine of the emergence of the exchange ratios of goods, then it will be time to discuss his theory of money as well.
The objection is methodological: a characterization of money cannot substitute for price theory. The notice of René Théry likewise separates extensive international research from theoretical coherence, criticizing an inconsistent treatment of the quantity theory that weakens the investigation of foreign trade and exchange-rate fluctuations.
Bernhard Brockhage’s historical research receives a different kind of scrutiny. Mises emphasizes the fragile evidentiary basis of earlier accounts of capital movements:
Für die ältere Zeit vollends fehlen bisher nicht bloß ziffernmäßige Angaben; alles was man bisher darüber wußte, beruht auf einzelnen nicht näher kontrollierbaren, gelegentlichen Bemerkungen in größeren Werken.
English translation: For the earlier period, indeed, it is not merely numerical data that have hitherto been lacking; everything that has been known about it up to now rests on isolated, incidental remarks in larger works which cannot be checked more closely.
Brockhage reconstructs Prussia’s capital exports before 1840 despite its predominantly agrarian economy and limited industrial development. Obstacles to industrial investment directed accumulated funds toward mortgages and securities; restricted domestic opportunities encouraged investment abroad. Mises welcomes the synthesis of dispersed evidence while withholding final judgment until the continuation appears.
The notices of national banking studies similarly value clarity and the filling of evidentiary gaps. Edgar Jaffé updates his concise account of English banking, while Eugen Kaufmann draws on primary evidence to illuminate French banking and economic life. Ivar Hultman supplies useful information about less familiar central banks, particularly those of the Balkans; J. Lewin addresses Russian joint-stock banks. Yet geographical detail is not itself a sufficient organizing principle. Discussing Arthur Loewenstein’s history of Württemberg credit banking, Mises argues that German financial integration limits the explanatory independence of a regional account. He nevertheless commends the author’s execution and understanding.
Wilhelm Prion’s study of securities-market price formation is praised for avoiding both polemical denunciation and concealment of abuses. Its examination of the effects of the 1896 stock-exchange legislation is especially valuable, although its treatment of fundamental theory remains insufficient. This qualified approval contrasts with Mises’s rejection of Julius Helmo’s attack on Germany’s monetary and banking constitution for inadequate scholarship and uncritical reasoning. Georg Schmidt’s comparative study of discount policy prompts detailed discussion, followed by skepticism toward its theoretical sequel. Mises questions Schmidt’s claim to originality and acknowledgment of predecessors in advancing the view that reserve requirements constrain banks’ otherwise unrestricted ability to meet credit demand through notes and deposits.
The practical and legal notices preserve these distinctions between competence and completeness. Berliner and Engländer’s treatment of Austrian usury law is strongest in legal exposition, with economics occupying a secondary position. Georg Hartrodt’s handbook on discounting book debts is useful, but its claim to exhaustive coverage exceeds the field’s unresolved legal and technical knowledge. Friedrich Leitner and Luc. Wiernik offer practical banking guidance; Georg Schulte extends the statistical documentation of mortgage credit. The concluding discussion of St. Wiewórowski’s study of banking concentration and crises recognizes the benefits of a bounded programme and well-organized evidence.
The article’s coherence lies in this differentiated evaluation. Mises insists that monetary theory confront price formation without demanding that every historical or technical work become a theoretical treatise. His strongest approvals reward research that enlarges knowledge while keeping its claims proportionate to its evidence and purpose.
This work was divided into 17 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 17 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian