2,793 works, 150 years of economic thought. Each one summarized and searchable, with cited passages inside.
If the “least important need” is simply the one a person sacrifices, does saying so explain the choice? In this reply to Bernardelli, Felix Kaufmann makes that problem of circularity a test for claims of necessary truth in economics. He argues that definitions can secure certainty only by leaving open whether actual behaviour conforms to them. His treatment of marginal utility distinguishes rational valuation as a definition, its applicability to conduct as an empirical assumption, and diminishing utility through satiation as a claim grounded in experience. The point is not to discard these concepts, but to establish what they can explain. This compact methodological dispute shows how an apparently unassailable economic principle can acquire explanatory content precisely by becoming open to refutation.
Can investigating the business cycle bring it to an end? Felix Kaufmann makes that absurd prospect the closing joke of this satirical song, presented in Arlene Oost-Zinner’s 2010 English translation. His speaker distrusts scientific abstraction, demands that science feed a nation, and calls on the state to halt value-neutral inquiry. These complaints become comic through their excess: the critic of scientific methods cannot explain why engines run, while a renowned institute’s board leaves one man doing all the work. The song offers a compact encounter with methodological controversy turned into performance, where anxiety about science’s limitations gives way to fear of its improbable power.
An explanation of interest under perfect foresight need not explain interest under uncertainty. This distinction drives G. L. S. Shackle’s review of Allais’s Économie et Intérêt. After presenting Allais’s reasons why interest remains positive, Shackle questions whether money and liquidity-preference merely obscure deeper forces of thrift and productivity. Might causation also run the other way, with monetary interest rates shaping capital accumulation, income and ultimately time-preference? His objection gives readers a concrete way to distinguish what a model shows to be possible from what it establishes about economic life. Yet the review is no dismissal: Shackle balances his impatience with perfect foresight against admiration for Allais’s analytical precision and the breadth of his investigation.
The fact that a gas-fire can make a room warm does not imply that a warm room must contain a gas-fire.
A circle without its center becomes an affectionate joke about intellectual fellowship in Felix Kaufmann’s three-stanza song. Radii wander with nowhere to go, while π laments a wound measured to the thousandth decimal place. The mathematical conceit lets the Mises circle express attachment to its absent center without abandoning its taste for precision—or taking its own grief entirely seriously. Presented in Arlene Oost-Zinner’s 2010 English translation with the musical score, this small work offers a glimpse of shared scholarly language turned into sociable wit: calculation supplies the terms of sorrow, and the hoped-for return promises collective jubilation.
Who decides which differences between people should count? In this essay, republished in 1964, Alfred Schütz approaches equality through the classifications that organize everyday social life. His central distinction is between belonging to a group as its members understand it and being assigned to a category by outsiders. Racial legislation, segregation, and minority protection show how imposed classifications can make one characteristic govern a person’s entire social standing. Schütz also exposes a tension within equal opportunity: formal eligibility does not ensure that an opportunity is accessible or compatible with someone’s other commitments. The essay offers a precise way to examine why equal treatment can leave domination intact—and why preserving a group’s distinctive life may require more than removing discriminatory barriers.
Typifying consists in passing by what makes the individual unique and irreplaceable.
Should Cantillon be read for his place in economics’ ancestry, or for what his reasoning can still teach? In this 1932 review of Henry Higgs’s edition and English translation of the Essai, Hayek firmly favours the latter. His praise for making the work accessible accompanies a precise textual objection: neither the printed French nor the reconstructed English is straightforwardly the original, and the edition does not adequately distinguish its English sources. The review brings Hayek’s theoretical commitments into contact with the practical demands of scholarship. Readers can discover why he regards historical priority and conjectures about influence as less compelling than direct engagement with Cantillon’s analysis—and why access to that analysis still requires editorial transparency.
A seminar’s survival becomes a personal worry in Felix Kaufmann’s farewell song for Mises: Geneva cannot accommodate everyone, and Vienna’s departing scholars leave more than empty chairs behind. Presented in Arlene Oost-Zinner’s 2010 English translation and folk-song arrangement, the four stanzas mingle affectionate tribute with nervous humour. Drumming fingers and a recurring Latin lament sit alongside opposition to import taxes—a pointed reminder that friendship and economic conviction bound this circle together. The song offers a compact, intimate view of scholarly allegiance under the pressure of separation: its speaker honours the teacher’s new appointment while wondering what will become of the shared life he leaves behind.
Though its printed text is nothing but formula, this thank-you card with autograph signature is a compact witness to a political career. It acknowledges congratulations on Gustav Gross's election as president of the Austrian Reichsrat's Abgeordnetenhaus in 1917, but the catalogue record around it opens outward: Gross had sat since 1899 as deputy for the Moravian town of Iglau and ranked among the leading politicians of the German-national camp, a chairman of German protective associations. The card fuses private courtesy with institutional self-presentation, turning a personal exchange into a sign of parliamentary status. Together with its envelope addressed to Oskar Berl, it preserves in miniature the office, associational leadership, and ceremonial language through which late Habsburg politics marked its occasions.
Er war Präsident und Obmann der deutschen Schutzvereine "Südmark" und "Deutscher Schulverein" sowie Vorsitzender des "Deutschen Nationalvereins".
English translation: “He was president and chairman of the German protective associations "Südmark" and "Deutscher Schulverein," as well as chairman of the "Deutscher Nationalverein.”
Housing needed for armament workers and housing stimulated by rising wartime incomes pose different policy problems. In this December 1941 article, Karl Pribram argues for supporting the first while restraining the second—not only to conserve scarce materials, but to preserve demand that could sustain employment when defense spending declines. His perspective joins the timing of durable-goods production to the risks of mortgage and building cycles. The practical difficulty is distributional: tighter credit can exclude poorer households, while limits on construction can raise tenants’ rents. By weighing mortgage restrictions against building-permit limits and accompanying tenant protection, Pribram shows why restraining a boom requires more than reducing construction totals: it requires deciding which needs to meet now and which purchases can safely wait.
Defending an institution because it exists is not the same as defending it because it is just. In this 1957 comment on Samuel P. Huntington’s account of conservatism, Murray N. Rothbard presses that distinction against the proposal that American liberals set aside ideological argument to resist communism. If attachment to established institutions is sufficient, he asks, why should it not also vindicate defenders of Soviet rule? Rothbard argues instead for answering rival principles with reasoned principles—and changing institutions where liberal commitments require it. His treatment of the New Conservatives sharpens the point: their shared opposition conceals incompatible political ideals. This brief polemic offers a concrete test of political labels by separating what movements resist from what they believe deserves preservation.
The proper answer to the radical challenge of a new ideology is to adopt not conservatism but a contrasting radicalism, to oppose reason with reason.
Could Switzerland honour its international railway commitments without binding its entire network to perpetual foreign privileges? In this 1911 article, Siegmund Feilbogen defends rejection of the proposed Saint-Gothard convention while resisting both financial retaliation and disruption of European transit. His distinction is precise: material concessions may be negotiable, but permanent limits on political independence are not. Reading the earlier treaties against demands for repayment of foreign subsidies, he argues that state acquisition need not extinguish existing guarantees—or enlarge them into rights over all Swiss railways. The article offers a concrete encounter with treaty interpretation under unequal diplomatic pressure, showing how an ambiguous provision about railway mergers could, in Feilbogen’s view, turn a limited infrastructure obligation into an indefinite constraint on national autonomy.
Industrial growth need not eclipse agriculture, nor commercial expansion displace concern for national independence: these are the balances Siegmund Feilbogen values in his short review of A. de Navay de Földeak’s study of Hungary’s economic role. He praises the author’s statistical precision and restraint, drawing on Levasseur’s preface to place industrial gains alongside the country’s continuing dependence on the land. His strongest endorsement, however, goes to the connection between material development and the preservation of national rights. Five French-backed industrial enterprises give concrete support to his approval of Földeak’s appeal to French merchants. The review shows how Feilbogen’s judgement of an economic survey joins measured assessment of development to sympathy for Hungarian autonomy and Franco-Hungarian trade.