The archive.

A remainder in the accounts is not yet an explanation of interest. In this critical article, Franz Xaver Weiss tests Richard Strigl’s claim that capital interest arises from what remains after wages and land rent have been paid. His sharpest objection is that Strigl’s reasoning would permit such a surplus even in production without capital: why, then, attribute it to capital? Weiss defends marginal-productivity reasoning without accepting the explanatory primacy claimed for it by Clark and his followers. He also restores entrepreneurial choice and competitive adjustment to an apparently motionless equilibrium. The article offers a precise way to distinguish the calculation of a distributive share from an account of its cause—and to see why market prices cannot simply be translated into subjective valuations.

Would a stronger krone make Austria richer, or merely change the monetary terms in which wealth and obligations were counted? In this 1922 rejoinder to Emanuel Hugo Vogel, Alfred Amonn challenges the claim that recovery requires currency appreciation rather than stabilization. His central distinction is between a currency’s permanent exchange-rate level and the disruptive process of moving to another level. Applied to wages and taxes, it yields pointed consequences: cheaper goods do not necessarily mean greater purchasing power for workers, while unchanged nominal taxes become heavier when money appreciates. Amonn’s insistence on defined terms and causal explanations gives this polemical exchange its substance. Readers encounter both a concrete dispute over monetary recovery and the friction between analytical criticism and personal disparagement.

Where does quotation end and distortion begin? In this brief 1922 reply to Robert Liefmann, Alfred Amonn defends his criticism against a charge of falsification. His distinction is pointed: quoting necessarily removes words from their context, but that alone does not demonstrate a material alteration of meaning. He demands a side-by-side comparison of Liefmann’s text and his own allegedly falsified presentation, maintaining that no adequate example has been supplied. The statement offers a compact encounter with Amonn’s combative standard of proof—not a resolution of the dispute, but a precise account of what he insists his accuser must establish.

Credits and debt cancellations alone cannot buy peace - that is the burden of Schumpeter's March 1922 address to the Austrian League of Nations association. Fiscal and monetary disorder are not autonomous technical problems but the outward manifestations of deeper dislocation, the war having been an excess of consumption and a great consumption of capital that left general impoverishment. He contrasts Britain's harsh deflationary return to the pound with the inflationary adjustments of Germany and Austria, and shows how divergent currency policies breed new international antagonisms: weak-currency states appear aggressive, strong-currency states turn protectionist. Emergency loans would only intensify these tensions. The League's proper work, he concludes, lies in unglamorous legal-economic infrastructure - lowering tariff walls, securing international payments, rebuilding credit law - since free trade is the surest cement of the idea of peace.

Nicht von außen und nicht durch Kredite können diese Probleme gelöst werden.

English translation: “These problems cannot be solved from outside, nor by means of credits.”

At a moment when economics could not agree on its own object, this 1922 introduction sets out not to found a new system but to ask what abstraction the science actually requires. Its answer: theory is indispensable, yet its concepts are never timeless natural laws — they are constructions fitted to a historically specific order, the capitalist exchange economy, where access to goods runs through money-mediated exchange and homo oeconomicus is a working fiction. Lederer reconstructs the labor-value tradition — Ricardo's rent, Marx's distinction between labor and labor-power, surplus value, the equalized profit rate — as a powerful account of reproducible commodities, then delimits it: it cannot price scarce or monopoly goods. Marginal utility, resolving needs into ranked partial satisfactions, supplies the rest, and he reads classical, Marxian, and Austrian economics as partial theories of one and the same exchange order.

Für die Ware ist die Tauschfähigkeit das Wesentliche, so wie für das Gut: die Brauchbarkeit.

English translation: “For a commodity, exchangeability is essential, just as usefulness is essential for a good.”

Just as a chemical equilibrium shifts to absorb an external shock, an exchange rate moves to keep a nation's balance of accounts in balance—the analogy to Le Châtelier, Van't Hoff, and Lenz from which Rueff builds a theory of currencies as natural phenomena rather than political accidents. Working from wholesale price indices, he defines the 'disparity' between a currency's purchasing power at home and abroad, then demonstrates, mathematically and against 1912–1922 data for France, Britain, and the United States, that disparity moves to equilibrate the balance of accounts. He reads Britain's postwar unemployment as the cost of negative sterling disparity and dismisses the reparations quarrel: to compel Germany to pay while barring her exports is simply contradictory.

La vie économique, dans son ensemble, et pour un groupe important d'individus, paraît bien ainsi régie par la loi la plus générale de la nature.

English translation: “Economic life as a whole, and for an important group of individuals, thus appears indeed to be governed by the most general law of nature.”

International financial control could become an obstacle to the development it was meant to oversee: this tension draws Schwiedland’s attention in his short review of E. J. Tsouderos’s account of Greece’s economy. He highlights Tsouderos’s case for adapting supervision to the demands of territorial expansion, while offering his own qualified optimism about Greek agriculture, shipping and trade. Unfinished railways give that qualification a concrete basis. Particularly revealing is Schwiedland’s endorsement of Tsouderos’s proposed Balkan economic arrangement: reduced tariffs and restored banking relations might prepare the ground for political understanding. The review offers a compact view of how this sympathetic reviewer connected Greece’s prospects with both domestic improvements and cooperation across borders.

A jurisprudence resting solely on the ground of logic — that is the ambition of Kaufmann's outline of a "pure theory of law," which takes Kelsen's reine Rechtslehre and grounds it in Husserl's phenomenology of essence, against every empiricism that dissolves validity into fact. Jurisprudence becomes exact, he insists, only when it stops deriving its concepts from psychology, power, purpose, or moral value. A norm is not an imperative bound to a commander's will but an objectivation of a stance; the legal proposition is a double norm — a subject ought to act, and if it does not, a consequence ought to follow toward that subject — whose juristic core is formal imputation, not causality. From four ground concepts — person, behavior, fact, and ought — he generates the pure legal concepts, recasting the subjective right as nothing but the correlate of another's duty.

Jede theoretische Wissenschaft ist ein Inbegriff synthetischer Urteile a priori.

English translation: “Every theoretical science is a totality of synthetic a priori judgments.”

Does relating the quantity of money to its value explain anything unless the economic connections between them are made explicit? In this 1922 reply to L. von Bortkiewicz, Richard Kerschagl defends his monetary theory through Othmar Spann’s distinction between universalist and individualist explanation. For Kerschagl, the issue is not whether a theory favours society or the individual, but whether it understands economic objects through their functional relationships. His unexpected example is subjective utility theory: a liter of water acquires economic significance through its circumstances, not its physical properties alone. Applied to money, this perspective makes income the mediation he finds missing in quantity theory. The short polemic offers a concrete encounter with the methodological stakes behind a dispute about monetary value.

Before economics can state a single law, Strigl argues, it must decide what “economy” actually means — and ordinary language, saturated with technical, legal, ethical, and social associations, cannot supply the answer. This methodological prolegomenon grounds theoretical economics in pure “economic categories,” the necessary forms in which any economic fact must be grasped, beginning from Gottl’s Lebensnot, the bare condition that goods fall short of wants. The variable “data” of an economy — needs, techniques, milieu, social organization — are not external givens but concretizations of those categories, realized through what Strigl calls the Organisation der Wirtschaft. Against the historical school’s relativism and against Amonn’s attempt to define economics through social exchange, he insists that Crusoe’s isolated household, communist planning, and the market alike remain objects of one law-science.

Die theoretische Nationalökonomie ist keine Sozialwissenschaft, sondern enthält Aussagen über Begriffe, welche soziale und auch nichtsoziale Erscheinungen erfassen können.

English translation: “Theoretical economics is not a social science; rather, it contains propositions about concepts that can encompass social as well as non-social phenomena.”

Luxury and forced labour stand side by side in Eugen Peter Schwiedland’s brief review of Richard Thurnwald’s Psychologie des primitiven Menschen. Praising Thurnwald’s ethnological account, Schwiedland foregrounds two sources of economic change: desires that exceed material necessity and the power to make others work. Shells, beads, and stones acquire value through distinction or supernatural associations; slavery and tribute, in his account, expand production and differentiate occupations. The review offers a compact encounter with an approving interpretation of Thurnwald in which technical limits, symbolic value, and coercion all shape economic life—and in which the language of “progress” accommodates domination as well as invention.

Can artists, scientists, entrepreneurs and technicians form a durable alliance simply because they all invent or create? In this 1922 review of E. R. Curtius’s lecture on French intellectual workers, Emil Lederer tests that promise against the economic divisions it would have to overcome. Where Curtius finds possibilities for a new occupational solidarity, Lederer asks what material interests could hold it together—and whether “syndicalism” accurately describes it. His comparison of the creative producer with Schumpeter’s entrepreneur sharpens the appeal of the idea without endorsing its organizational claims. The review exposes a pointed tension: rejecting cultural nostalgia does not prevent intellectuals from romanticizing their own emancipation, especially when faith in reason obscures the economic forces reshaping their livelihoods.