4,099 works, 472 books, 3,268 articles, 356 other works, 3 awaiting classification, 150 years of economic thought. Each one summarized and searchable, with cited passages inside.
Does a larger depreciation write-off amount to falsifying the accounts? In this brief speaking turn from the coal-mining deliberations of the German Socialization Commission, Emil Lederer rejects that equation, while Rathenau interrupts to insist on it. The exchange offers no accounting details or developed defence, but pinpoints a disagreement worth examining: whether the size of a write-off alone establishes fraudulent bookkeeping.
Ist es denn eine Fälschung der Bücher, wenn er mehr abschreibt?
English translation: “Is it really a falsification of the accounts if he writes off more?”
Who imposes the obligation, and who determines the depreciation charges it covers? In this brief recorded intervention from the coal-mining deliberations published in 1920, Emil Lederer presses Rathenau to distinguish two institutional roles. The law imposes an obligation to make depreciation charges; the central syndicate recognizes which charges qualify. This small exchange offers a precise point of entry into the commission’s discussion: naming the source of legal compulsion does not settle the question of how its accounting requirements are determined.
Large depreciation allowances need not imply falsified accounts. In this brief intervention, recorded in the coal-mining deliberations of the German Socialization Commission published in 1920, Emil Lederer distinguishes an accusation of dishonesty from an argument about conflicting interests. He attributes the tendency to maximize depreciation to a continuing power struggle between entrepreneurs and state administration or consumers. The passage offers a precise glimpse of his reasoning: accounting practices can reflect economic conflict without being fraudulent, and that conflict cannot simply be assumed to have ceased.
“But I did not insinuate that!” Emil Lederer’s contribution is a single interjection recorded in the 1920 coal-mining commission proceedings, not a statement of policy. Its interest lies in the distinction he insists upon between his own remarks and an insinuation attributed to him. The emphatic German “doch” gives the denial the force of a correction. This small documentary fragment preserves that moment of resistance, while leaving the disputed allegation—and Lederer’s substantive position on coal mining—unidentified.
What must a law say if railway nationalization is to occur thirty years later? In this single-sentence intervention, recorded in the 1920 coal-mining deliberations of the German Socialization Commission, Emil Lederer insists conditionally that the timetable would have to appear in the statute itself. The interest lies in that precise demand: a future transfer to state ownership must be given explicit legal wording. The isolated speaking turn does not establish his broader position on nationalization, but preserves a concrete point about how such a commitment would be formulated.
Does a mine’s “substance” mean the coal still underground, or only its installation? In this single recorded question from the coal-mining commission proceedings published in 1920, Emil Lederer asks for a distinction between the resource and the facility used to extract it. The interest lies in that precise demand for clarification: readers encounter a disputed term at the point where its meaning must be established, without an answer or a mining-policy position supplied by the extract.
Would coal production have been just as large without the syndicate? In this single recorded question from the Socialization Commission’s proceedings published in 1920, Emil Lederer asks his interlocutor to distinguish actual output from the syndicate’s contribution to it. The interest lies in that precise counterfactual: production figures alone do not settle what an organization has achieved. No answer or statement of Lederer’s own position is included; the brief exchange preserves his effort to make another speaker’s claim explicit.
“Not larger?” is the entirety of Emil Lederer’s recorded interjection in this extract from the 1920 coal-mining deliberations of the German Socialization Commission. Its interest lies in the precise distinction between questioning a comparison and proposing an estimate: Lederer challenges the scale under discussion without supplying a figure or explanation. The isolated utterance preserves that challenge, but does not identify what was being compared.
Why organize coal mines into syndicates when collieries are sinking new shafts specifically to increase output? In this brief intervention from the 1920 Socialization Commission proceedings, Emil Lederer tests a claim against a concrete investment decision. His objection offers a glimpse of economic reasoning in live deliberation: the purpose of syndicate organization must be squared with mines’ efforts to expand production. The preceding claim is not included, so this speaking turn preserves a pointed challenge rather than a settled account of syndicate policy.
A doubt, not a counterargument: this complete recorded interjection from the coal-mining deliberations of the German Socialization Commission, published in 1920, preserves Lederer questioning the latter of two preceding points. It offers a small documentary glimpse of his intervention in debate, while leaving both the disputed claim and his reasons unstated.
(Lederer: Das letztere ist fraglich!)
English translation: “(Lederer: The latter is questionable!)”
What can a claim about coal’s value legitimately tell us about its buyers’ assessments? In this single-sentence intervention, preserved in the Socialization Commission’s 1920 proceedings on coal mining, Emil Lederer rejects the assertion that the final buyers value coal at 35. He supplies no alternative figure: his objection concerns what can be attributed to those buyers. The preceding premise and the unit of valuation are absent from this extracted speaking turn. Its interest lies in that precise challenge to an inference, rather than in any recoverable proposal for coal pricing.
Can an economy consume exactly the same amount of coal at 35 marks as at 12? In this single recorded intervention in the coal-mining deliberations of the German Socialization Commission, Emil Lederer rejects that assumption as inconceivable. The remark isolates a concrete point of disagreement: whether aggregate coal demand can be treated as insensitive to price. It offers a concise instance of Lederer questioning an economic premise without estimating how much consumption would change or specifying which consumers would respond.