The archive.

Why should capital yield interest if its productive power is already reflected in its price? In this 1912 article, Siegmund Feilbogen approaches Böhm-Bawerk through that difficulty, tracing how the preference for present over future goods connects valuation with the time required for production. His portrait is sympathetic but not uncritical: he reads Böhm-Bawerk’s explanation as recovering elements of the productivity, use, and abstinence theories it appears to displace. A machine built over five years makes the stakes concrete: entitlement to a future product is not necessarily entitlement to its completed value today. Readers can discover both the logic of Böhm-Bawerk’s attack on exploitation theory and Feilbogen’s insistence that refuting a particular socialist theory does not dispose of socialism itself.

What does a school of economics inherit from its founder: settled principles or unfinished problems? In this 1912 article, Siegmund Feilbogen presents Menger’s successors, chiefly Böhm-Bawerk and Wieser, as independent thinkers confronting gaps in a shared framework. If productive resources derive their value from consumer goods, how is that value divided among the resources that jointly produce them? And how can interest be explained before it is defended or condemned? Feilbogen’s emphasis on these difficulties makes intellectual succession a matter of analytical work rather than allegiance. His account also catches a prospective shift in Wieser’s thinking: from treating individual wants as given to investigating how customs and collective traditions shape them. Readers encounter Austrian economics here as a research programme whose common premises leave substantial questions open.

A duchess buys diamonds while an attendant cannot afford medical care for her child: what, then, does a market price measure? In this installment of his study of Wieser, Siegmund Feilbogen presents subjective value theory without treating market outcomes as verdicts on social need. Prices register the valuations of those able to trade, not the interests of everyone affected. His exposition connects this economic argument with Wieser’s account of political authority, in which effective leadership depends on popular adherence rather than command alone. The distinctive tension lies between explaining existing institutions and judging their results. Readers can discover why, in Feilbogen’s account, criticism of unequal purchasing power remains compatible with marginal utility theory—and why public or socialist provision would still require careful economic calculation.

Common ownership would abolish private property, but would it abolish rent, interest, or the need to value scarce resources? In this 1912 continuation of his study of Wieser, Siegmund Feilbogen explores a tension within natural value: it preserves economic calculation while providing grounds for criticizing prices shaped by unequal wealth. His exposition is also an intervention. Distinguishing a productive factor’s value in its absence from its contribution through its presence, he clarifies the difficulty of dividing a joint product among complementary inputs. Education, subsidized transport, and alcohol production then expose the gap between commercial returns and social benefit. The article offers a concrete encounter with Austrian value theory as neither a simple defence of existing prices nor a promise that collective ownership would dissolve allocation problems.

Rural depopulation, in this 1912 Vienna lecture, is neither moral decay nor the inevitable price of progress but a structural failure of property distribution. Schwiedland joins attraction and expulsion: where large estates or dwarf holdings dominate, the ambitious young see no credible path from wage labour to ownership, and so they leave. He reframes the rural labour question as a land question, surveys the lesser remedies — cooperatives, credit institutions, rural schools, better housing — and subordinates them all to Besiedlung, inner colonization on the Prussian Rentengut model, where a holding is acquired through long-term rent rather than crushing capital debt. The purpose is not to furnish hands to landlords but to anchor capable labourers as owning citizens, giving them a visible prospect of ascent.

Für diesen Abzug kamen also nicht bloß die Reize der Städte, sondern auch die verhältnismäßige Erschwerung der Existenz auf dem Lande in Betracht: die Stadt zieht die Leute seelisch an, während zugleich das Land sie wirtschaftlich abstößt.

English translation: “For this exodus, then, not merely the attractions of the cities came into consideration, but also the comparative aggravation of existence in the countryside: the city attracts people psychologically, while at the same time the countryside repels them economically.”

A definition of money is not yet an explanation of prices. That objection anchors Ludwig von Mises’s 1912 review article on monetary and banking literature: against Friedrich Bendixen, he insists that monetary theory cannot set aside the question of money’s value. Yet his standards vary with the task. He welcomes Brockhage’s reconstruction of capital exports from agrarian Prussia and values practical banking manuals without mistaking usefulness for completeness. The interest lies in these discriminations: Mises can fault a study’s theoretical foundations while praising its evidence, or question the value of regional banking history within an integrated national money market. Readers encounter a critic testing what different kinds of financial scholarship can legitimately explain—and where their claims outrun their achievement.

A textbook can supply economic facts without teaching readers how to explain them. In this 1912 review of textbooks, histories of thought, and teaching aids, Joseph A. Schumpeter makes that distinction a demanding critical standard. He praises Lexis’s unified account of economic circulation but challenges explanations of distribution that leave profit and interest undistinguished; he admires Taussig’s use of theory to illuminate banking, railways, and trusts without accepting all his conclusions. Schumpeter’s commitment to subjective value theory is joined to a teacher’s concern with how beginners acquire analytical judgement. His reservations about isolated excerpts and historically prestigious selections sharpen the central issue: what makes material intellectually useful rather than merely informative? The review offers a concrete view of his standards for economic explanation and their consequences in the classroom.

A defense of grain tariffs can concede that they raise bread prices and inflate land values—and still insist that they preserve peasant farming. This tension anchors Emil Perels’s 1912 review of recent trade-policy literature. Assessing Karl Diehl’s engagement with free-trade arguments, Perels distinguishes the merits of economic research from the political commitments its conclusions serve. His scrutiny is equally practical: proposed reforms to grain import certificates must confront labor shortages and cultivation constraints, while value-based luxury duties require workable customs valuation. Across German tariff controversies and Austrian export policy, readers encounter a reviewer attentive to costs, administrative obstacles, and the limits of statistical inference. The result shows concretely why acknowledging an opponent’s economic evidence need not produce agreement about policy.

Germany’s recurrent money-market strains, Felix Somary argues in this 1912 article, require more than dearer credit: they demand better organization of cash already available. Higher discount rates may punish industries needing working capital rather than those driving a boom, while gold circulating in wages and retail payments cannot simultaneously strengthen Reichsbank reserves. Somary approaches monetary reform through these practical mismatches, connecting bank balances, public treasury operations, and small-denomination notes. Comparisons with England, Austria, and France sharpen his proposals without making foreign institutions ready-made models. The article offers a concrete account of how payment habits and administrative arrangements can create monetary pressure—and why concentrating reserves promises relief while raising its own risks of speculation, dependence, and wartime vulnerability.

A theory can be correct and still contribute nothing: this distinction drives Emil Lederer’s sharp rejoinder to Kleinwächter over urban ground rent. Defending his unfavorable review, Lederer writes not as an opponent of the Austrian school but as someone whose own theoretical work rests on it. He argues that Kleinwächter repeats Böhm-Bawerk’s account without developing its implications or confronting difficult cases. Building taxation supplies a concrete test: if a tax merely confiscates ground rent, what happens at the urban periphery, where rent may be absent or insufficient? The reply offers a compact encounter with Lederer’s standards of economic criticism—standards that require more than doctrinal agreement, while distinguishing lack of originality from plagiarism.

How far could civil servants’ political freedom extend if official duty governed even their secret ballot? In this short review of Der Beamte, Emil Lederer examines a handbook that supports rights of association and expression while forbidding votes for parties it labels hostile to the state, notably Social Democracy. He locates this compromise within the Centre Party’s social outlook, tracing its affinity with small independent traders through practical advice: housing cooperatives are welcomed, consumer cooperatives viewed with suspicion. His concluding doubt concerns the programme’s audience: would more radical civil servants accept such terms of reconciliation? The review offers a compact view of how proposals for civil-service reform could combine collective rights with restrictions on political and economic choice.

A newspaper digest can save a researcher time—but can it replace the articles it condenses? In this short 1912 review, Emil Lederer assesses the Deutsches Zeitungsarchiv, a new service extracting economic material from 93 German-language daily newspapers. He welcomes its purpose while questioning both its subscription costs and the scholarly adequacy of brief notices. The option to obtain original articles or transcriptions matters to his qualified approval. His further proposal—to include specialist and interest-group periodicals on which newspapers themselves often draw—reveals what he wants from such an enterprise: not merely convenient summaries, but organized access to sources worth consulting after their immediate news value has faded.