Wilhelm Vleugels: Bemerkungen zu Friedrich Wiesers „Grundgesetz der wirtschaftlichen Nutzkomputation“ und zum „Gesetze des Vorrates“ (1927)

Wilhelm Vleugels’s article examines the disagreement between Friedrich Wieser and Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk over the valuation of stocks of homogeneous goods. Both assign a decisive role to marginal utility, but their calculations of aggregate value differ: Wieser multiplies the number of units by marginal utility, whereas Böhm-Bawerk considers the utilities dependent on the quantities being valued. Vleugels treats this difference as fundamental to household economics:

Für sie ist in der Tat der durch die Namen Wieser und Böhm-Bawerk gekennzeichnete, in der Frage der Ermittlung von Gesamtwerten bestehende Gegensatz von fundamentaler Bedeutung.

English translation: For them the antithesis designated by the names of Wieser and Böhm-Bawerk, which exists in the question of the determination of total values, is indeed of fundamental importance.

Hans Mayer’s projected reconciliation provides the immediate context. Leaving aside Mayer’s anticipated account of the applicability of Wieser’s law to production, Vleugels concentrates on household planning. His central distinction is between a computational rule that may be harmless in executing an established plan and a theoretically adequate method for determining total value.

The first difficulty concerns Wieser’s separation of divisible stocks from goods constituting an indivisible whole:

Bei diesen „Gesamtsachen, die ein unteilbares Ganzes bilden“, handelt es sich um einen in Wiesers Auslegung teilweise problematischen Begriff; gleich das erste Beispiel, mit dem ihn Wieser illustriert, ist geeignet, das zu zeigen.

English translation: In the case of these "aggregate things which form an indivisible whole", we are dealing with a concept that is in part problematic in Wieser's interpretation; the very first example with which Wieser illustrates it is apt to show this.

Wieser’s example concerns harvest stores protected by an island’s sea wall. Vleugels argues that their exposure to collective destruction does not establish a distinct economic category. Any stock loses its total utility when destroyed; the sea wall makes this possibility especially salient without changing the principles governing valuation.

Was die Erntevorräte im Wieserschen Beispiele von anderen Vorräten scheidet, das ist lediglich die Tatsache, daß jene einer höheren Gefahr des Unterganges in ihrer Gesamtheit ausgesetzt sind.

English translation: What distinguishes the harvest stocks in Wieser's example from other stocks is merely the fact that the former are exposed to a greater danger of perishing in their entirety.

This criticism leads to a qualified concession. Wieser’s rule can accompany the achievement of maximum utility when consumption follows a predetermined plan without alteration. Provided no unit is assigned to a use below the established margin, the available stock satisfies the most important needs it can cover. But successful allocation does not validate the calculation of aggregate value. A plan may change through advantageous exchange as well as accidental loss. When several units are surrendered, their value depends on the particular satisfactions forgone, not simply on repeated application of the marginal utility prevailing before their removal.

The second part tests Wieser’s “law of stocks,” especially the proposition that marginal utility remains constant as planned consumption reduces both stocks and outstanding needs. Vleugels reconstructs the example of a ship carrying ten tonnes of fresh water for ten days. He assumes ten daily needs of differing urgency, each requiring one hectolitre. Initially, one tonne supplies the least urgent need throughout the voyage. After one day, however, satisfying that need for the remaining journey requires only nine hectolitres. Losing a full tonne would therefore sacrifice some satisfaction of a more urgent need as well. The marginal utility of this fixed physical quantity changes despite orderly consumption.

An imagined request from another ship for two tonnes halfway through the voyage sharpens the objection. The sacrifice would extend across differently ranked satisfactions and cannot be valued by multiplying the marginal utility of a single tonne by two. Whether householders explicitly perform such counterfactual calculations is separate from their theoretical relevance.

Vleugels nevertheless recognizes a valid reason for assigning equal values to successive daily tonnes: each provides the same total utility. In the numerical illustration, urgency figures descending from ten to one yield a daily total of 55 and a ten-day total of 550. Multiplication succeeds because it repeats an equal total utility, not because each tonne carries the original marginal utility. Equal daily services must therefore be distinguished from the changing marginal utility of a tonne withdrawn from the remaining stock.

The conclusion turns to the unit of valuation. Following Wieser’s own criterion that units depend on needs and the means of satisfying them, Vleugels distinguishes a hectolitre satisfying one daily need from a tonne satisfying that need over the entire voyage. This connects the ship example with Böhm-Bawerk’s colonist allocating grain until the next harvest. Continuous consumption does not reconcile the competing formulas. The article’s contribution is to separate practical execution of a consumption plan, marginal valuation of a fixed quantity, and computation of aggregate stock value.