4,249 works (including 483 books, 3,406 articles and 357 historical documents), 150 years of economic thought. Each one summarized and searchable.
What happens when assets indispensable to running an enterprise are not legally attached to its land? In this brief question recorded in the Sozialisierungs-Kommission proceedings published in 1921, Emil Lederer recalls a municipalization provision extending expropriation to precisely such property. He asks for clarification, recalling the justification that prevailing law permitted expropriation only of immovable property. The intervention offers a compact view of a practical legal difficulty: taking over land might not secure everything needed to operate the enterprise. Its interest lies in Lederer’s attention to the gap between legal classification and operational necessity, not in a developed argument for expropriation; the recorded turn contains no answer.
Must municipalities wait for decisions on a grain monopoly and livestock regulation before considering public bread and meat provision? In this brief intervention in the Socialisation Commission’s proceedings, published in 1921, Emil Lederer argues that the questions can be separated: upstream changes would affect municipal producers and private bakers alike. He asks whether cities intend—and have economic grounds—to continue or expand provision, without unconditionally endorsing the replacement of private businesses. His discussion of butchers’ retail margins adds a revealing caution: a large gap between purchase and sale prices does not by itself establish excessive profit, especially when cost calculations are disputed. The contribution offers a compact example of how Lederer opens a practical policy inquiry while acknowledging the limits of the available evidence.
Deliberate omission is not the same as rejection. In this single-sentence intervention recorded in the Socialization Commission’s proceedings, Emil Lederer clarifies that expropriation of mixed public–private enterprises and of shares was intentionally left without further discussion—even though mixed enterprises had figured prominently in the debate. The remark offers a precise caution for interpreting the commission’s record: it establishes a limit to the deliberations, but supplies neither a reason for that limit nor a judgement on the measures themselves.
An earlier takeover of enterprises supplies Emil Lederer with a precedent, but not a legal answer. In this brief recorded intervention in the Socialisation Commission’s deliberations, he asks whether taking over enterprises presents a difficulty requiring juridical examination. Neither the enterprises nor the possible obstacle is specified. The interest of these two sentences lies in their restraint: Lederer invokes practical experience while leaving its legal implications open, distinguishing what had previously been done from what still needed to be established.
Municipal ownership of housing construction does not necessarily imply a municipal monopoly. In this brief intervention, recorded in the Sozialisierungs-Kommission proceedings published in 1921, Emil Lederer separates those choices while insisting that building small dwellings cannot be detached from the conditions under which they are let. He accepts municipal acquisition of existing construction businesses in principle, but leaves monopoly open to debate. The passage offers a precise instance of legislative caution: before extending a municipalization law, Lederer asks whether housing’s intertwined problems require legislation of their own.
Including cooperatives is not the same as allowing them to obstruct municipalization. In this brief intervention recorded in the Socialization Commission’s proceedings published in 1921, Emil Lederer insists that their inclusion requires an explicit safeguard. He then asks what criterion would suffice, proposing “day and scope” without explaining their application. The turn captures a precise legislative tension: how to accommodate cooperative institutions without giving them the means to block the proposed municipalization.
When Frankfurt secures its milk supply, neighbouring municipalities may lose out—but is municipal ownership the cause? In this brief intervention recorded in the Socialization Commission’s proceedings, Emil Lederer locates the conflict in unequal purchasing power, which also governs competition among private dealers. He defends municipal provision without claiming that it can erase those inequalities, and rejects compulsory municipalization where local conditions differ. The concrete example of milk moving toward a wealthier city gives his distinction its force: a disadvantage that persists under private trade cannot simply be charged to socialization. The passage offers a compact exercise in judging institutional reform without confusing inherited economic conflicts with the effects of a new ownership arrangement.
A valuation formula can appear precise while leaving its decisive assumptions to the judge. In this brief intervention recorded in the Sozialisierungs-Kommission proceedings, Emil Lederer challenges the use of expected future returns as a binding basis for compensation. Whether domestic prices approach world-market prices soon, slowly or only partly could, he argues, change valuations by hundreds of percent. His proposed wording—earnings value rather than exclusively future earnings—keeps past returns available without pretending to resolve the uncertainty. Political constraints on corporate dividends add a practical complication: reported returns need not track currency depreciation. The passage offers a concrete glimpse of how a small legislative choice of words can assign broad economic discretion to courts.
Ich würde deshalb den künftigen Ertrag nicht als bindende Norm aufstellen.
English translation: “I would therefore not establish the future return as a binding standard.”
Does failing to find work establish a right to compensation? In this brief recorded intervention in the Socialisation Commission’s deliberations, Emil Lederer insists on distinguishing an earning opportunity from its successful realization. He reads the proposed wording as granting an entrepreneur an annuity only where reasonably expected new employment cannot offset the loss. An able-bodied forty-year-old who cannot secure earnings might qualify for unemployment assistance, he argues, but not compensation; an older man without an earning opportunity has a different claim. The exchange offers a sharply drawn boundary between compensation and unemployment support, while leaving open the practical question of how an earning opportunity is to be established.
In this single-sentence intervention recorded in the Sozialisierungs-Kommission proceedings published in 1921, Emil Lederer proposes safeguarding cooperatives through a cutoff date and a minimum number. His contribution offers a compact instance of translating protection into administrative criteria: one temporal, one numerical. Neither the date nor what the number would count is specified, leaving the proposal’s practical meaning open rather than supplying a finished policy.
A municipality’s intention to keep an enterprise running does not by itself settle how that enterprise should be valued. In this brief intervention recorded in the Sozialisierungs-Kommission proceedings, Emil Lederer proposes wording for enterprises whose continued operation the municipality does not intend. His reason is concrete: demolition value could considerably exceed earnings value. The few lines isolate a distinction between intended use and comparative valuation, showing why continued operation cannot simply be assumed to yield the higher figure.
A waterworks need not fit neatly within municipal boundaries. In this single-sentence intervention from the 1921 proceedings of the Sozialisierungskommission, Emil Lederer explains that this practical possibility motivated an earlier proposal. Neither the proposal nor the anticipated difficulties is specified here. The passage offers a narrowly focused glimpse of his reasoning: municipal territory may be an awkward frame for a utility whose operations extend beyond it.