The archive.

When does an economic theory explain conduct, and when does it merely redescribe the assumptions built into it? Felix Kaufmann’s 1933 essay makes this distinction the test of methodological claims. His central case is subjective value theory: ordering a consumer’s preferences is not yet explaining how those preferences arose. He treats marginal utility as a guide to investigating economic plans, whose usefulness must be demonstrated rather than secured by deduction alone. At the same time, he distinguishes economics’ subject—social exchange—from its explanatory instrument, the individual plan. Readers can discover why accepting preference analysis need not mean defining all purposive action as economic, and how conceptual precision exposes claims of empirical certainty that definitions and formal reasoning cannot support.

A price can explain what someone will pay without establishing what serves their well-being. In this December 1920 sequel article, Frank Albert Fetter challenges the claim that contemporary economics is converging on money and prices as its governing framework. His criticism is pointed because he defends price theory as a legitimate analytical undertaking while refusing to make market valuations standards of welfare. Reading Marshall and Mitchell against their own qualifications, he exposes the tension between monetary precision and humanitarian purpose. Capitalized property rights sharpen the problem: their value may depend on restricting services rather than satisfying needs. The article offers a concrete way to distinguish explaining economic choices from judging their consequences, without discarding the tools of price analysis.

Data may feed inquiry, but can they produce theory? Felix Kaufmann turns this methodological dispute into a three-stanza song, here in Arlene Oost-Zinner’s 2010 English translation with an accompanying score. His satire respects the labor of collecting evidence while rejecting its claim to generate theory unaided; an obscure appeal to “natural value” fares no better. Yet the joke also reaches Professor Mises’ seminar, where evening argument promises certainty until dinner asserts a more bodily demand. The song’s distinctive pleasure lies in this double edge: theoretical conviction and affectionate mockery share the same table, allowing readers to encounter methodological loyalties in the lighter register of seminar sociability.

Abolishing the employer does not by itself give workers a stake in collective life. This distinction anchors Emil Lederer’s review essay on Walther Rathenau’s proposals for economic and social reconstruction. Welcoming Rathenau’s turn toward expropriation, Lederer asks what would make self-government more than a change of administrators: participation in production, municipal affairs, and communal housing must make solidarity an everyday experience. His criticism also reaches Rathenau’s fear that economic equality would impoverish culture. Why should the disappearance of wealthy patrons entail the disappearance of creative initiative or diverse audiences? Rather than promise socialist flourishing, Lederer challenges the projection of wartime deprivation onto a future social order. The essay offers a concrete account of what ownership reform leaves unresolved: motivation, cultural freedom, and the institutions through which people acquire shared responsibility.

When a country reckons its standing in the world, the ledger of exported and imported goods tells only part of the story — and that omission is the subject of this short manuscript essay on travel and the balance of payments. Beginning from the observation that railway passenger traffic on Europe's most developed lines had doubled in twenty years, Inama-Sternegg treats modern travel not as a cultural curiosity but as a measurable economic force. Tourists circulate needs as well as bodies: exposure to foreign hotels, food, and comforts differentiates demand and makes national markets porous. He then converts visitors into lodging-days and expenditures, and folds tourism receipts, transport services, emigrant funds, and workers' remittances — with figures from Switzerland, the Tyrol, and Italian labourers — into a fuller Zahlungsbilanz that mere merchandise trade conceals.

Der Reisezauber hat es den Kulturmenschen angetan.

English translation: “The spell of travel has taken hold of the civilized man.”

Can a monetary theory justify reform if its central terms keep changing meaning? In this polemical review of Robert Liefmann’s Geld und Gold, Alfred Amonn tests claims of theoretical novelty against the discipline of consistent definition. He traces shifts between money as a tangible medium of exchange and money as an abstract accounting unit, arguing that these changes obscure rather than explain economic relations. The stakes become concrete in Liefmann’s proposal to dispose of the Reichsbank’s gold reserves. Without insisting that sound money must rest on gold, Amonn defends reserves as a resource for international purchases and postwar reconstruction. The review offers a pointed encounter between conceptual criticism and monetary policy: what must an economist establish before recommending that a country surrender such a resource?

A hostile notice in the Prenzlauer Zeitung, picking up a foreign source's reading of an article he had written for the Lloyds Review, forced Schumpeter to explain himself to his faculty dean. The letter reconstructs the piece's reluctant, patriotic origin, commissioned through Lloyds Bank and Sir William Dampier and taken up only after an appeal to his national feeling, and restates its transfer-theoretical core: reparations cannot be treated as a bare legal demand when world protectionism, and France's Kontingentierungspolitik in particular, block the German exports through which alone they could be paid. Insistence on the claim, he argues, must be tested against willingness to accept German goods. By authorizing the dean to circulate the letter, he turns a private defense into a document of Weimar intellectual politics.

Wenn das Bestehen auf der Reparationsforderung keine böse Schikane sein soll, so müsste sich die Welt im Allgemeinen vom Protektionismus abwenden und Frankreich im besonderen seine Kontingentierungspolitik aufgeben, was das wahre Kriterium der Annahmewilligkeit und doch nicht unmöglich wäre.

English translation: “If insistence on the reparations claim is not to be sheer malicious harassment, then the world in general would have to turn away from protectionism, and France in particular would have to abandon its quota policy—which would be the true criterion of a willingness to accept payment, and yet would not be impossible.”

Accused by the Prenzlauer Zeitung of denying Germany's capacity to make further tribute payments, Schumpeter answers the newspaper directly, and his grievance is as much logical as political. To prove an impossibility, he explains, one first states the conditions under which the thing would be possible and then shows that they do not obtain; the paper had seized only that first, conditional step and reversed the argument into its opposite. He notes that the editors relied uncritically on a source known to be unfriendly to Germany, that a telephone call would have spared them the error, and that a German teacher was hardly likely to hold the position ascribed to him. Nationalist in tone yet formal in method, the short letter defends argumentative accuracy under the pressure of the reparations crisis.

Reißt ein feindlicher Bericht das erste Glied heraus und lässt er die Bedingungen, deren Unmöglichkeit die Unmöglichkeit des Tributs erweist, weg, so ist das Argument in sein Gegenteil verkehrt.

English translation: “If a hostile report tears out the first link and omits the conditions whose impossibility proves the impossibility of the tribute, then the argument is turned into its opposite.”

Did the banking crises of 1931 expose a failure of classical monetary theory, or institutions and policies that its principles could still explain? In this 1933 review, reprinted in 1990, Ludwig von Mises tests Nassau William Senior’s monetary lectures against exchange depreciation, protectionism, and international lending. His defence of Senior is not simply an appeal to authority: he distinguishes changes in banking arrangements from changes in the mechanisms of monetary adjustment. Especially revealing is his account of banks that promised immediate repayment while financing assets they could not readily sell. Mises locates the monetary danger less in capital flight itself than in newly created central-bank credit used to meet withdrawals. The review offers a compact encounter between classical arguments and interwar banking practice, separating explanations of policy choices from approval of their aims.

Does money’s influence on freedom and personal life require a philosophy beyond economics? In this short review of Georg Simmel’s Philosophy of Money, Carl Menger challenges the boundary on which Simmel’s project rests. He argues that Simmel mistakes the limitations of historical economics for those of economic science: monetary theory already investigates psychological causes, while economic and socialist writings examine money’s effects on human relations and even imagine worlds without it. Menger credits Simmel with stimulating, sometimes new insights but denies that these amount to a systematic advance in monetary theory. The review offers a compact encounter with Menger’s expansive conception of economics—and his distinction between intellectual ingenuity and theoretical contribution.

Hard problems melt like chocolate creams, and hungry seminar participants replenish themselves through “Import tariffs”: Felix Kaufmann’s song affectionately brings intellectual ambition down to the dinner table. In Arlene Oost-Zinner’s 2010 English translation, this portrait of the Mises Circle makes debate and conviviality parts of the same pleasure. Yet its confidence briefly falters: why keep questioning when life flows on regardless? The answer—a resolve to take a stand—gives the returning refrain a seriousness its exuberant praise of truth might initially conceal. This small work offers a distinctive glimpse of scholarly fellowship expressed through jokes, shared appetites, and the feeling of being at home in argument.

German trade unions recovered members, won wage increases and gained official recognition during 1916–18—but how much power did these gains confer? In this instalment of his Sozialpolitische Chronik, Emil Lederer distinguishes organizational strength from workers’ capacity to secure adequate consumption, freedom of movement and political influence. Labour scarcity strengthened bargaining while military controls restricted mobility; higher money wages could not compensate for missing civilian goods. His statistical scrutiny accompanies a critical examination of union leaders’ cooperation with government and their increasingly contested authority among workers. Completed in autumn 1918 and published unchanged in 1920, the chronicle preserves an analysis made before demobilization transformed its conditions. It offers a concrete account of how institutional recognition and economic concessions could coexist with political subordination.