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.
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.
In this single-sentence intervention in the Socialization Commission’s deliberations, Emil Lederer singles out value as the only admissible criterion. His tentative “I believe” introduces an exclusive claim, but the recorded turn neither defines value nor explains what it should measure. The source preserves a precise, limited trace of his position rather than an argument for it.
Ich glaube, es kann nur der Wert in Frage kommen.
English translation: “I believe that only value can be considered.”
In this single question from the Sozialisierungs-Kommission’s proceedings on municipalization, Emil Lederer asks Professor Lindemann whether the procedure under discussion provides for no repetition within the municipal representative body. His intervention isolates a possible procedural omission and seeks confirmation rather than proposing a remedy. The recorded turn offers a compact example of Lederer’s attention to the precise operation of municipal decision-making, while leaving both the meaning of “repetition” and Lindemann’s answer outside the extract.
Representation is not the same as competence: this is the precise objection Emil Lederer raises in his brief intervention on economic courts, recorded in the Socialization Commission’s proceedings published in 1921. A judicial chair flanked by employer and employee assessors might be equipped to settle disputes within economic life, he argues, without being qualified to judge municipalization. Such questions require local insight and administrative experience, not simply representatives chosen for a different jurisdiction. This short contribution lets readers examine a concrete problem of institutional design: how the purpose governing a court’s composition can limit the questions it is fit to decide. Lederer challenges the proposed adjudicating forum, not municipalization itself.
How do adopted resolutions become an official, public report? In this brief intervention recorded in the Socialisation Commission’s proceedings, Emil Lederer offers to compile the decisions and proposes a precise next step: approval at the next plenary session, followed immediately by transmission to the Cabinet or Reich Ministry of Economic Affairs and publication. The interest lies in this procedural link between deliberation and action—not in the substance of the resolutions, which the speaking turn does not describe.