조선비즈 ‘수출둔화→무역적자→환율상승’ 악순환…커지는 경기 침체 경고음 6월 수출 증감률 20일까지 -3.4% 두 자릿수 증가 16개월 만에 끝날 듯 수출 둔화 조짐…고환율에 생산·소비·투자 감소 우려 尹정부, 내달 수출상황점검회의 “환율 상승에 따른 시장 불안 억제” --->전에도 말했지만 국가 부채를 갚는데 전력을 다해야 한다. 지난 번처럼 돈을 풀어서 시장을 활성화 시키겠다는 몽상에서 깨어나야 한다. 그리고 두번째로 최저임금, 주 52 시간제 등 문죄인 밑에서 만들어진 악법들을 폐기해야 한다. 세번째로 기업에 간섭을 하지 말고 자유롭게 경영을 할 수 있는 환경을 만들어주어야 한다. 까딱 잘못하면 거대한 경제 위기가 한국을 덮칠 것이다. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 헤럴드경제 [단독] 양향자, '국힘 제안' 반도체특위 위원장 수락…간사에 김영식 kim5**** 반도체를 전공은 하지 않았지만, 아무말이나 한다고 그게 논리가 사실이 되는 거는 아닙니다. 양형자가 무슨 근거로 반도체 전문가인가요? 그저 웃네요! --->이재용을 못 살게 군 사람들이 바로 문죄인과 윤석열이 아니었나? 기업의 일은 그냥 기업에 맡겨야지 정치가 개입하면 다 망한다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 블라인드 한전 직원 양심고백 삼양목장 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11423444456 공기업 때려잡아야 함 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 심상정, 4선 미스터리 / "일체 손을 대지 않았다" / 스스로 물러나지 않는 한, 계속해서 국회의원을 해 먹겠구나 / 하여튼 희안한 나라 [공병호TV] https://youtu.be/i2ZzJ7oOFpE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 대한민국 기상청 근황 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 테슬라100주 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11423457924 실시간 일기예보하는데 그마져도 다 틀림 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ 존재이유를 모르겟음 저런데도 언론에 나와선 자기들 고생한다고 징징댐 --->오늘 소나기 온다고 해서 잔뜩 기다렸는데, 비 한 방울 안 내렸다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [지만원저장소] 광화문 서울시의회 옆 코로나 사망자 분향소 종뷱뱍멸이 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11423416357 오늘 어느 모임에 초대되어 30분짜리 강의를 했다. 그 모임에서 연사로 나선 한 인물이 김두천인데 그는 [코로19 진상규명시민연대] 상임회장이었다. 그의 연설은 우익에 대한 서운함이었다. 처음에 함께 모임을 시작한 사람들이 다 떠나고 지금은 그 혼자라고 하였다. 자기는 좋은 뜻으로 6개의 분향소를 2억원의 자비를 들여 설치하였지만 함께 했던 사람도 떠나고 이에는 그 누구도 그에 동조하는 사람이 없다고 하소연했다. 나는 최근 3차례에 걸쳐 광화문에 갔었다. 그때마다 서울시의회 건물 앞을 지나면서 하얀 고깔 천막을 보았다. 나는 안내하는 동지들에게 물어보았다. 저 분향소 누가 설치한 것이냐고. 세 차례 물어보았지만 대답은 늘 같았다. “빨갱이들이 차린 것입니다” 그런데 오늘 그 주인공을 우연히 만나보니 그는 훌륭한 애국자였다. 그가 피를 토하는 발표를 했다. 돌아와 내 주머니를 뒤져보니 그의 명함이 있었다. 회장은 ‘김두현‘ 010-6849-8880 명함의 로고를 보니 영어로 goodby virus, 그리고 녹색 세월호 리본이 새겨져 있었다. “그 징그러운 세월호 리본”, 애국 국민들이 지나가면서 천막 앞에 전시돼 있을 이런 세월호 리본을 보았다면 바로 그 순간 마음으로 침을 뱉고 지나갔을 것이다. 진저리나는 그 노란 세월호 리본! 6개의 천막을 지키고는 있지만 누구 하나 거들떠보지 않는 이유는 바로 이 리본에 있었을 것이다. 좌익들은 원래 어느 행사가 좌익행사인지 다 알지만 우익은 모른다. 그런 공지 네트워크가 없는 것이다. 결 론 나는 오늘 그가 매우 훌륭한 일을 하고 있다는 것을 처음 알았다. 세월호에서 죽은 아이들이 304명, 5.18에서 죽은 광주사람이 겨우 154명, 그런데 문재인이 적극적인 방법으로 죽인 코로나 사망자가 공식통계만 해도 2만이 훨씬 넘는다!! 나는 문재인이 통계를 숨겼다고 생각하는 사람이다. 문재인 코로나로 인해 사망한 사람이 수십 만 명이라고 생각한다. 나는 내 분석력으로 확신한다. 광주시민 154명은 북괴가 죽였다. 죽여 놓고 이를 공수부대 만행으로 뒤집어씌우고 있다. 세월호 304명 역시 북한이 공작하여 죽였다. 그래서 문제인이 “얘들이 고맙다, 하지만 미안하다” 속내를 털었다. 죽어줘서 고맙다는 뜻이다. 1948년 제주도를 전략적 기점으로 하여 남한을 먹으려던 스탈인-김일성이 팔로군 출신 무장게릴라 350명을 핵심 전투력을 하여 1948년부터 1954년까지 6년 동안 대한민국을 공격했다. 여기에서 미군장과 이승만 도당에 의해 학살된 제주도민이 1만 400명이라고 주장한다. 그런데 문재인이 코로나로 이 나라 국민을 지능적으로 죽인 국민의 숫자가 몇 십만인가? 왜 빨갱이들은 없는 숫자도 만들어 내는데 우익은 있는 숫자도 활용하지 못하는가? 문재인은 코로나 병균을 정책으로 가장하여 대량 유입시켰다. 그 후 민노당의 집회를 활성화시켜 병균을 확산시켰다. 증명되지 않은 백신을 마구 들여와 요양원 노인들을 싹쓸이로 죽였다. 절약된 노인연금으로 적자를 메꿨을 것이다. 처음에는 마스크 업체를 ‘지’ 아무개가 운영하는 회사만 공급을 하도록 했다. 문재인과 지 아무개와의 검은 거래를 밝혀야 한다. 마지막으로 국민을 왕창 죽인 것은 백신 장사였다. 군사 무기의 검은 거래, 그 흑막 시스템을 훤히 꿰뚫고 있는 나는 문재인이 백신 공급 업체들로부터 리베이트를 받았을 것이라고 의심한다. 김두천 회장은 비로 이것을 국민에게 홍보하고 싶었을 것이다. 내 판단이지만. 그런데 그의 문자 표현, 영상표현, 언어표현이 오해를 부른 듯하다. 매우 중요하고 훌륭한 이슈를 표현력의 부족으로 부각시키지 못하고 있는 것 같다. **내일부터라도 그 지역을 지나시는 분들은 코로나 분향소를 들려 그와 유익한 대화를 해 주시고, 1만원이라도 놓고 가시면 정신적 위안이 되고 큰 힘이 될 것이라고 생각합니다. 그분의 피 빛나는 충정이 표현의 부족으로 인해 백안시 받고 있는 것 같습니다. 우익은 서로 도와야 합니다. 따뜻한 표정, 이해한다는 말 한마디가 가장 큰 힘이 됩니다. 2022. 6. 25. 지만원 1. 서울시의회 하얀 고깔 천막은 문재인의 중공 코로나 만행을 알리기 위한 애국지사가 만든 분향소 2. 그런데 녹색 세월호 리본으로 표현력 부족으로 빨갱이라 오해를 받아왔음 3. 일게이라도 거기 지나치거든 성원해라! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 피구 세(Pigouvian Tax, 교정적 조세)는 허구이다. 피구 세는 외부 효과를 유발하는 행위에 부과되는 세금이다. 이산화탄소 배출을 줄이기 위해 자동차 주행에 부과되는 세금과 같은 것들이다. 하지만 피구 세는 상품이나 가격의 최적의 양을, 개인 소비자들의 행동이 있기 이전에 알 수 있다는, 엉터리 가정 하에 만들어진 것이다. 모든 보조금, 세금, 규제, 세금은 개인들의 행동을 왜곡하게 된다. The Pigouvian Tax Is a Myth Joseph Solis-Mullen A familiar question in a standard microeconomics graduate seminar goes something like this: a Pigouvian tax is not market distorting. True or false? The expected answer: true. True? Any fiscal intervention being definitionally a distortion of how a given market would otherwise operate, how can this be? Spoiler alert: it boils down to little more than academic charlatanry. First, a Pigouvian tax is a type of tax “levied on an activity that raises a good’s price to take into account the external marginal costs imposed by a negative externality” (all definitions come from Austan Goolsbee, Steven Levitt, and Chad Syverson’s Microeconomics, 3rd ed.). Along with Pigouvian subsidies, which are “paid for an activity that can be used to decrease a good’s price to take into account the external marginal benefits,” such interventions rest on the same mistaken assumption as every other government intervention in the market: that the optimal quantity of a good and its price can be known in advance of the individual actions of consumers and producers in the given market. Apart from a jargonistic label meant to obscure this basic fact, a bit of mathematical manipulation is used to further belie the truth. Consider the following illustration of a hypothetical electricity market with a single producer: the government has decided that it would be better if the supplier produced less electricity at a higher cost to consumers, a dubious notion our current situation is well suited to illustrating. To the concerned technocrat, however, the SMC, or social marginal cost, of electricity, a completely fictional metric, is higher than the producer’s marginal cost (a very real and measurable thing), thus necessitating intervention! 도표 생략 Applying its tax and shifting the supply curve up and to the left, the technocrat effectively chooses a price suited to their political agenda. Unsurprisingly, as with the progressives’ obsession with handicapping and eliminating America’s own fossil fuel industry, a policy meant to optimize a desired outcome fails, resulting in all new negative externalities—which no doubt must be addressed as well! The truth is that all subsidies, tariffs, regulations, and taxes distort how actors would otherwise behave. When tragic shortages result, however, as in the recent case of baby formula, the finger will be predictably pointed everywhere but at the source: government interventions in the market. The solution, it follows, is more intervention—stunting all possible innovation that might have sprung from other producers attempting to provide a service or good that addresses the supposed problem. The promise is always that this time is different, but history shows this to be either a deliberate lie or a lesson still unlearned. The total compensation of the average public sector employee being fully twice that of their private sector counterparts, it is just as easy to believe the one as the other. But in either event, it is unacceptable. This example of the regular poverty of academic economic thinking only further illustrates the need for alternative institutions to educate the public. It is the responsibility of concerned and honest intellectuals, therefore, to offer such alternatives, and to fight the obvious lies, half truths, and mistaken assumptions that drive much of what passes for public policy in the United States. As the Biden administration continues to pursue Donald Trump’s turn toward autarky, we can expect ever more such interventions—such as subsidies to industries supposedly vital to “national security interests.” One such example is the microchip industry, which because of covid-induced supply chain disruptions has seen billions mindlessly thrown down the domestic manufacturing drain. Though undeniably popular with voters, the long-term effects of overproduction will be lost in the shuffle of all the later problems the government’s other interventions will have caused. Or perhaps the government will see fit to address that problem, too, with a new tax. Such is what passes for thinking in Washington and in the much of the ivory tower, and it is this intellectual poverty and obsession with control that is largely responsible for the multifront economic mess were are in now—not the actions of an autocrat half a world away, whatever the Republicans, Democrats, and their loyal corporate media and think tank accomplices would have you believe. Author: Joseph Solis-Mullen A graduate of Spring Arbor University and the University of Illinois, Joseph Solis-Mullen is a political scientist and graduate student in the economics department at the University of Missouri. An independent researcher and journalist. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

요새 청년 자살 정말 심각하다 회말역전승 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11423282171 geoenoeoe/ 일베 댓글 어느시대에나 청년자살자는 있었지만, 갈수록 청년자살자는 늘어갈수밖에 없는 구조라는 점이 매우 심각한 문제임 과거 아날로그 시대에 어린시절을 보낸 사람보다, 요즘 청년들은 디지털기기를 어린시절부터 접했음. 그만큼 무분별한, 유해정보,물질만능주의에 더일찍,더빠르고 깊게 세뇌되어있음. 독서,명상,철학 이런 아날로그적인 요소는 경험도 거의없고 틀딱들의 전유물로만 생각함. 성장하면서 돈이 1의 가치가 되고, 돈벌기위해 모든걸 영끌해서 올인함. 투자실패함. 젊음이 있으니 시간을 갈아넣으면 재기할수도 있겠지만, 타격도 너무크고 막막하고 견뎌낼 노력하라는건 틀딱들 개소리로 여김 돈이 전부인데 투자에 실패했으니, 인내해서 재기한다는거, 너무지겹고 견딜자신도 없고, 왜 내 부모는 금수저가 아닌가 한탄함 한탕크게 성공해서 금수저로 외제차,명품으로 휘감고 간지나게 살고싶었는데, 남은건 갚아야할 원금+고리의 이자밖에 남지않았으니 더이상 살이유도, 의지도 없음-> 자살 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 한국에서 유일하게 남아있던 원시림 근황 부자가됩시다 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11423272005 한국에서 유일하게 손때묻지않고 남아있던 원시림이 가리왕산이었는데 올림픽 한다고 나무들 거의 파헤쳐버림 그런데 올림픽 스키장 짓는다고 나무 파헤쳤는데 아무것도 안 함 국내에 보존된 원시림이 없어서 일본으로 가야할 정도로 한국은 보존이 상당히 열악한 현실이다 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 장문) 조선시대는 정말 말 그대로 "헬"이었을것 같다 방구석2last2 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11423261559 지금도 물론 만만치않지만 그때는 진짜 어마어마했을거같다 반도의 위치나 지형 자체가... 중국 대륙 입장에서 봤을때 위로 쭉 올라간다음 오른쪽 아래로 꺾어 내려가는 ㄱ자로 되어있는데다.. 땅이 별로 가치가 있는것도 아니고, 숲과 산이 굉장히 많고, 자잘한 섬들까지도 많아서 중국에 사는 범죄자나 패배자 입장에서는 도망치기에 딱좋은 지형이다 이건 마치 신이 노예와 범죄자들을 위한 땅으로 만들어놓은게 아닐까 생각들 정도이다 그래서 반도에 사는 대부분의 인간들은 추악함을 몇단계 걸쳐 농축시킨 에센스와도 같아지게되었다 예전 1990년대때 TV 프로에서 어떤 시골마을에 살던 불쌍한 모녀 이야기가 나온적 있었는데 그 엄마라는 사람이.. 자신이 밭일하러 나갈때마다 항상 그때를 틈타 옆집 청년이 침입해 자기 딸을 성폭행하는 바람에 중절을 6번이나 하다가 나중에는 그냥 자궁을 떼는 수술까지 받았다며 하소연하는 내용이었다 (90년대에는 아리랑치기라던지 봉고차로 길거리에 있던 사람 납치하는일도 간간이 일어났던 시기임) 딸은 당시 90년대 보편적인 시골 여자들마냥 굉장히 온순하고 고통을 숙명처럼 여기며 감내하는 그런 여자여서 카메라 앞에서는 한마디도 안했었다(마치 중동에서 가족 인터뷰할때 가족 뒤에 서있기만 하는 딸이랑 비슷했었음) 아마 조선시대때는 이보다 훨씬 더 심했을것이다 남편이 밭일하러 집을 나가면 그때를 틈타 마을 청년들이 집으로 들어와서 아내나 딸 강간하고.. 아내나 딸은 협박때문에 보복이 두려워서 말도 못하고 그냥 남편(또는 아빠)한테 말 안하고 감내만 하거나, 아니면 남편이 그걸 알아도 반도 특유의 구질구질 끈적끈적 얽히고 섥힌 인간관계 구조상.. 어찌 방도가 없어서 제한된 틀 안에서 최대한으로 부질없는 노력을 하며 참고 또 참는.. 그런 감옥같은 삶이 꽤 많았을것이다 최지룡씨가 만화에서 말한대로 아주 사소한 원한을 사도 밤에 몰래 집에다 불지르거나 쥐불놀이를 핑계삼아 불질러버리기 때문에 성질 더러운것들 눈에 안띄게 늘 조심했을거고... 지금도 거짓말, 사기, 도둑질, 무고, 위증이 일상인데 그때에는 집에 사람 아무도없으면 물건 그냥 없어졌을것이다 어떤놈이 마음에 안들거나 뭔가 빼앗고 싶은게 있으면 거짓 소문 퍼뜨리거나 허위로 투서해서 사람 인생 종치게 만들었을거고 금이나 비단이나 도자기같은 뭔가 가치있는 귀중품이 남들 눈에 띄었다 싶으면 늘 시시때때로 신경써야되고... 있지도 않는 노비증서 만들어서 멀쩡한 사람 노비 만드는일도 비일비재 했을것이다 청년들이 위세를 가지고 남의 축사 들어가서 닭한마리 잡아먹어도, 주인은 그 부당함에 저항하다가 못이겨냈을때 자신이 초라하게 되는것을 회피하려고 애초에 그 경우를 이미지화시켜 '허허'하면서 웃으며.. 스스로를 세뇌시켜가며 불행에 대처한 경우도 많았을것이다 구한말 선교사들이 조선인들은 음식 생기자마자 모조리 먹어치우고 과식한다고 비판했었는데 아마 그 진짜 이유는 구질구질 얽히고 들어오는 착취관계를 애초부터 만들지 않으려는 이유 때문이었을것이다 한번 구질구질하고 완만한 비탈길이 만들어지면 다음부터는 끊어내기가 힘들기 때문에 처음부터 그 경우가 안만들어지게끔 딱딱하게 처세하는식으로.. 그러니까 그냥 다 소모시켜서 없애는식으로 처세하다보니 그런 풍습이 만들어진것이라 본다 마치 복권 당첨되면 온갖것들에게 연락오고 스토킹 당하는것처럼... 조선시대때에도 남들 게으름 피울때 혼자 열심히 해서 콩도 심고 모도 심고 이것저것 노력해서 풍작을 일구어내도 친척이니 이웃이니 하는것들이 글겅이질 해가기 때문에.. 착취당하지 않으려고 애초에 노력 자체를 안하게되어 하향평준화 되었을것이고... 그게 고착화되고 일상화 되었기 때문에 다같이 가난해지고 다같이 못난 상태가 된것이라 본다 손해보는게 상처받는것(착취당하는것)보다는 낫기 때문이다 이런 사회에서 연극, 가극, 오페라, 음악 따위는 없는게 당연하다 에도시대의 하나미같은 꽃구경 문화도 없는게 당연하다 조선시대때 축제가 하나도 없는 이유를 모르겠다고 하는 사람들은 조선인을 아직 잘 모르는것이다 그냥 주변 모든것들이 언제 침투할지 모르는 사기꾼, 범죄자, 정신병자, 방화범, 스토킹, 강간범, 도둑놈들뿐인데 어떻게 서로 어우러질수 있었겠는가? 선교사들은 조선이 고요하고 조선인들이 매우 정적이라고 묘사했는데 사실 조선이 고요했던것은 모든 사람들이 다 죽었기 때문이라고 생각한다 그중에 풍작을 일구어내거나 아니면 뭔가 좋은걸 가지고있으면 즉시 생지옥을 체험하게 되니까... 모두가 가난하고 비참한 못난 상태에서 로봇처럼 살았던것이다 출처 : https://arca.live/b/history22/51735158?p=4 --->한 30년 후면 한국이 다시 저런 사회로 돌아갈 수 있다. 지금 한국은 소수의 겁많은 기회주의자들과 좌파 특권 세력에 의해 통치되고 있다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 서울신문 [속보] 미 대법원 ‘낙태 합법’ 판결 뒤집었다 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 문명의 시작은 동양도 서양도 아닌 오리엔트 '중양'에서 [BOOK] 중앙일보 <인류본사> 이희수 지음 하지만 문명의 진짜 어머니는 오늘날 투르키예(터키) 중동부의 도시 유적인 차탈회위크로 봐야 한다는 게 지은이의 주장이다. 1950년대 후반 발굴이 시작된 이곳은 기원전 7500~기원전 5700년에 2000년 가까이 존속했던 ‘계획도시’다. 유네스코로부터 인류 최초의 도시로 인정받아 2012년 문화유산에 등재됐다. 약 200채의 집마다 창고‧부엌‧거실을 갖추고 정교한 벽화와 조각으로 장식했다. 벽의 황소 머리 장식과 독수리 형상, 이층으로 오르내리는 사다리는 고대인의 정신세계와 자연 추앙을 보여준다. 눈에 띄는 건 DNA 조사 등 과학적 연구 결과 이 도시는 주민들이 농경과 목축을 병행하며 공동육아제‧공동노동‧ 남녀평등을 누린 원시 공동체 사회로 밝혀졌다는 사실이다. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 좌파들이 말하는 것보다 더 많이 시장은 실질적인 평등을 조장한다. Markets Promote Real Equality Much More Than Progressive (and Conservative) Critics Claim coin Vibhu Vikramaditya The economy consists of a huge chain of the division of labor that is interlocked to such a limit where there exists hardly any single individual or firm that produces the whole of the product alone. This is famously illustrated in the essay “I, Pencil,” by Leonard Read. Each element of this complex chain is a firm that consists of many individuals, therefore one of the first questions one might ask is, "Why do individuals engage in these complex economic activities?" The answer to this fundamental question lies in the understanding that individuals undertake any economic activity with the expectation that it would make them better off than their present situation. Individuals, thus, in regard to their own interests engage in voluntary cooperation in the market economy. Although modern discussions in social consciousness on the presence of inequality makes it seem that unequal outcomes are unfair and thus morally unacceptable. Reality, however, is contrary to their beliefs, as the equality of markets always exists until external constraints in the form of barriers to entry are imposed upon it. Whenever a new product is introduced into the market and there are no externally imposed barriers to entry, the equality of the market lies in the equal opportunity it affords to each producer to participate in the market and accumulate resources. The crucial point being the reproducibility of the product demanded or the producibility of its alternative. The firm that introduces the new product for sure gets a leading advantage in the game but such advantages rarely lead to the firm acquiring a monopoly position in the market for a long period of time. This phenomenon is most effectively demonstrated in the history of commercial personal computing, where pioneers such as the J. Lyons Company, Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation, and Gavilan Computer Corp., many of whom introduced personal computing in its nascent form, couldn’t capitalize on it to gain supernormal profits. As these products came on to the market, it started a process of entrepreneurship where due to lack of barriers to entry many other new entrepreneurs and firms could capitalize on the existing product and through innovation and upgrades grab a lot of market shares, this was how Apple and IBM managed to capture a large part of the market despite not being first movers. Today other new companies such as Lenovo (24.7 percent), HP (24.0 percent), and Dell (17.6 percent) are dominating the market. While this affords equal opportunity to all producers who want to sell their products and outcompete other existing firms due to their efficiency and better products, it also rewards success with an accumulation of resources that pass hands from the less effective to the more effective producers. The process in the personal computing market is sure to continue in the future as long as external barriers in form of licensing, quotas, and other competition entry measures are not introduced externally by the government. The critics of the existing distribution of resources argue that due to the fact the distribution is not equal, i.e., some have more and others have less, therefore it is wrong, but this is an understanding only of a superficial nature. Markets consist of numerous sellers engaging in competition with each other to attract and satisfy the consumers in the best manner possible. In any market, the sellers who are able to attract and satisfy the consumers better than their competitors reap higher profits. These profits accrue to firms because they perform better than their competitors and in return get to accumulate money capital. This monetary capital then may allow them to be in a better position than other firms that have either lost monetary capital in terms of losses. This process wherein monetary capital gets transferred from lower-performing firms to higher-performing firms is the reason behind the allocative efficiency of the marketplace, which on one hand minimizes wastage of resources and on the other builds a structure of good decision making. This is an example of unequal outcomes that are borne out of the equal nature of competition. The equality of competition lies in the equal opportunity that is afforded to each firm such that it can enter the marketplace, use its resources in any way it desires to satisfy the consumers. While inequality of this kind is morally acceptable, since it is borne out of equal opportunity afforded to all, there are inequalities in the marketplace that are a result of special privileges that inhibit the equality of markets. A situation in a market in which a producer of a product gets exclusive rights to produce that commodity and subsequently gets an accumulated monetary capital based on the high monopoly profit it earns is an example of unequal outcomes, which creates inequality that isn't morally acceptable. Inequality in the Modern World Entrepreneurs produce with the expectation of future revenue, which they seek to derive from their consumers. They advance wages to workers before the output is produced in order to help the workers finance their consumption. The core competition between entrepreneurs on an economy-level basis happens in terms of the ability of entrepreneurs through their goods to get consumer’s money income. The process by which consumers act in regard to their own desires by buying goods from entrepreneurs they prefer based on the relative abilities of goods to satisfy their desires naturally creates a distribution of money income where the bulk of the total amount of money that consumers received while working goes back to entrepreneurs who were best able to satisfy their desires. At the same time, a significant portion of entrepreneurs who advanced wages to workers and introduced additional money income into the society through investments fail to generate a revenue stream. This is the reason why it was found that every fifth new business in the UK fails within its first five years and that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) had shown in the US that about 20 percent of new businesses fail during their first year of trading. Less than 50 percent of businesses succeed past the first five years of operation, and by the tenth year in business, about 65 percent have failed. The results of maximizing economic efficiency that the market brings about is a result of the competitive process in which different firms engage with the central prize being chased is the consumers’ money. The lack of understanding of the competitive process of the market has led to the formation of a number of misguided notions, the most impactful of them being the notion of big businesses and market share. Accumulation and Market Share Today big and successful companies such as Amazon are described as monopolies where its critics point to its increasing market share as indications of its market power. While amazon’s market share has been increasing over the last decade, its much lower relative prices and better services to consumers appear as a contradiction this worldview. As we have seen earlier, the ability to satisfy the consumer in a better manner than one’s competitors leads to accumulation of money. Companies such as Amazon have been firms that have satisfied consumers in a much better manner than other firms, although this past success of a large market share doesn’t provide Amazon “monopoly power,” as critics believe. Large market share in traditional economic theory states that since the firm has managed to satisfy the consumers in a relatively better manner in the past, it gains a hold upon its buyers whereby it can effectively set its own market rules and gain a significant profit rate. However, this belief is based on a misunderstanding of how the competitive process in markets actually works. Large and successful firms such as Walmart and Amazon have significant portions of their own respective consumer market segments. While Amazon boasts of having the largest retail e-commerce market share of over 38 percent, a study found: In 43 metropolitan areas and 160 smaller markets, Walmart captures 50 percent or more of grocery sales, our analysis of 2018 spending data found. In 38 of these regions, Walmart’s share of the grocery market is 70 percent or more. Despite such levels of market power that these firms seem to enjoy among consumers, their net profit margins, which illustrate how much of each dollar in revenue collected by a company translates into profit, have been consistently low and had been decreasing during the periods where they had gained their respective market shares. Walmart, which had a net profit of margin of about 3.33 percent in 2010, saw it consistently decline over an eight-year period to 1.02 percent in 2017, while its revenue grew from $403.12 billion to $510.16 billion during this period. Amazon had a similar story in which it went from 3.83 percent in 2010 to 1.20 percent in 2017, and even being in net loss for two years, its revenue during the same time going from $28.66 billion to $177.86 billion. The path followed by the net profit margins in both these cases is not a random phenomenon but a result of the competitive process. Firms competing in the market for money look to undercut competitors in order to attract the marginal consumers toward them. This allows them to engage in monetary accumulation, demonstrated by the increase in revenue in both cases, but it is not the case, as the critics claim, that the gaining of market power of a firm allows it to overcome the discipline of the market and become monopolies. Amazon’s net profit margin, despite its massive accumulation of money and a market share of almost 50 percent, has experienced only an addition of 3.28 percent. Walmart during the same period experienced only a nominal increase of 1.24 percent. The fact that the gains in net profit are low is a testament to discipline of the competitive process, in which even the possibility that a competitor can take away a firm’s customers keeps the big firms in line. The growth of the Dollar Tree, which caters to the needs of middle- and lower-income groups by undercutting Amazon and Walmart, has been astonishing. Its revenue has grown from about $4 billion to $26 billion, working within some of the overlapping consumer base of Amazon and Walmart with a consistent average net profit margin of more than 5 percent. These results demonstrate that a firm’s market share is no guarantee against facing competition. Firms that have been successful continuously find ways to reduce their costs and undercut competitors, while firms that accumulate large sums of money succeed by becoming more efficient in serving needs of consumers. Thus, inequality borne out of the competitive process is morally acceptable, as it is the result of the superior ability of an enterprise to satisfy consumers in an environment in which opportunities to satisfy consumer desires is afforded to all. Author: Vibhu Vikramaditya An economics and a libertarian scholar with research interests in capital theory, monetary theory, and business cycles, I write about events in the economy from a legal and economic standpoint with a proliberty outlook and believe that safeguarding the liberty and rights of each individual is the most important act toward peace, prosperity and growth. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

조선일보 [사설] 검수완박 밀어붙이더니 헌재 제소까지 취하하라는 민주 더불어민주당이 국회 원 구성 조건으로 헌법재판소에 제소된 ‘검수완박’(검찰 수사권 완전 박탈) 법안 권한쟁의심판을 취하하라고 요구했다고 한다. 그래야 작년 여야 협상에서 국민의힘에 넘기기로 합의했던 법사위원장 자리를 주겠다는 것이다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 공기업 구조조정을 해야하는 EU 이게맞는거냐 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11423036561 요즘 석열이형 공기업 구조조정한다며 공공기관 존나 벼루고 있음. 나 역시 공공기관 및 공기업 구조조정은 필수라 생각하지만 그 대상이 누가 되어야 하는가로 이야기를 좀 해보려고 함. 보통 공기업은 적자나면서 직원들은 고임금 철밥통이라 존나 배알꼴려들 할거임. 그래서 공기업 구조조정 한다면 다들 찬성할거임. 그런대 그건 대단히 잘못알고 있는거. 일단 공기업이 왜 적자가 날까? 그 이유는 당연히 수익을 추구해야하는 기업이 수익을 추구하지 못하고 정권의 포퓰리즘 압박에 의해 수익성 떨어지는 사업을 하기 때문임. 예들들어 이용자수 좆도 없는 신안같은데 공항을 짓는다던가, 경유지를 존나 늘려서 지하철이나 ktx노선이 존나 비효율적으로 깔린다던가, 이용자 좆도 없는 버스노선 운영한다던가 하는거. 즉, 공기업이 재정적자가 나는 가장 큰 이유는 방망경영이 아니라 복지라는 명분의 정치인들 포퓰리즘의 희생량이기 때문임. 그래서 문재인같은 좌파가 집권하면 공기업의 재정무건전성이 씹창이 나는거고 그 대표적인 사례가 흑자 공기업이 수십조 적자기업으로 전락한 한전임. 한전 뿐만 아니라 항공 지하철 기차 전부 좆같은 상황임. 문재인의 경우 일자리는 정부가 주도하는거라며 81만 공공부문 일자리 공약을 처걸었음. 그리고 임기동안 비정규직을 죄다 정규직으로 전환시켜 버림. 보통 비전문 비숙련 직무들은 외주화를 하는게 상식이나 공기업들은 이런 불필요한 직렬을 신설하고 거기다 정규직 전환직들을 밀어넣은거. 당연히 공기업들은 불필요직렬 신설과 불필요 인력들을 채용해 몸집을 본의 아니게 부풀리게 되었음. 뿐만 아니라 문재인 집권당시 기관평가에 사회적 가치실현이라는 좆같은 항목을 추가했는데 이건 곧 채용 많이 하라는 압박이었음. 그래서 공공기관들은 재무건전성 씹창나더라도 무리하게 채용을 늘리게 되었음. 뿐만 아니라 채용형 인턴이라는 3개월짜리 단기계약직을 미친듯 뽑아대며 예산을 공중에 뿌려댄거. 실제로 2019년 기사였나? 그때 재무건전성 좋아 전년도 최고 평가를 받았던 한국전력기술이 다음해에는 사회적 가치실현항목에서 낮은 점수아 기관평가가 떨어졌다는 기사도 본적이 있음. 그러던 새끼가 임기 말에 취업률 씹망하니까 이제서야 일자리는 민간이 견인하는거라 아가리 털때 진심 오함마로 면삭 찍어버리고 싶었음. 여튼 이러한 포퓰리즘 정책의 폐해는 고스란히 기업 재정적자를 심화시키게 되었는데 정작 정치인들은 입닫고 물러났고 그 책임은 뜬금없이 방망경영이라는 프레임 하에 공기업 직원들에게로 돌려버림. 방망경영은 맞으나 방망경영을 한게 직원들이 아님. 따라서 재무건전성이 씹창난 이유를 철저히 분석하고 거기 관련된 정치인 및 임원들에게 책임을 묻는게 맞다고 생각 함. 또한 문재인 집권당시 신설된 불필요한 직무들을 다시 외주화 시켜야 한다고 생각 함. 당연히 그때 떼법으로 정규직이 된 사람들은 구조조정 대상이 되어야 한다고 생각 함. 쉽게말해 백투더 2017로 가야하고 그 과정에서 위에 언급한 부분들에 대한 구조조정이 이뤄져야 한다고 생각 함. 별빛윤하/ 일베 댓글 [공기업 성과급 설명] 1. 공기업 A,B,C,D에서 원래 받아야하는 연봉의 일정비율을 강제로 걷음. 2. 정부가 공기업 A,B,C,D를 지들 입맛에 맞게 잘한순으로 순위를 매김. 3. 강제로 걷은 돈을 차등지급.(즉 꼴등은 자기돈 뺏겨서 남에기업 돈주는꼴) 이게 니들이 말하는 공기업 성과급 잔치임. 적자 여부와 관계없음. 팩트는 알고 가자 --->현실적으로 어렵지만, 한전이나 지하철까지도 사실은 민간이 경영하게 해야함 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 조선일보 [단독] “靑행정관, 해경청장이 말 안듣자… 수사국장 찾아가 감당할 수 있냐며 압박” ‘자진월북 결론 종용’ 증언 나와 “친문의원 보좌관 출신 靑행정관, 수사국장에 수차례 전화해 고함” 담당국장 3개월뒤 치안감 승진 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 세계 최초 비대면강간으로 징역 6년 임청하 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11423015551 요약 1. 남성 A가 성폭행범으로 지목당함 2. 본적도 없는 사람이다 억울하다 주장 3. 피해자가 너가 범인이래 + 경찰 수사 개판 4. 징역 6년 선고 5. 실제 진범 따로있고, 진범은 성폭행 피해자 친인척으로 피해자에게 A가 성폭행했다고 말하라 시킴 6. 진범 징역은 2년 6개월 7. 아무런 잘못 없는 사람 한명 성폭행범에 징역 6년살게 할뻔 하고선 당당한 경찰 --->청나라의 판결만 봐도, 범죄 사건을 잘못 판결하면 나중에 진실이 밝혀질 경우 처벌을 받는다. 그런데 현대 관료들에게는 그런 게 적용되지 않는다. 정말 기가 찰 일이다. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 현재 우리나라는 제조업에서 생산하는 제품들마저 수출이 시원치 않으면... 민주팔이그만 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11423077917\ 원화가치 하락으로 인해 수입물품도 오르고.. 오일가격이 올라서 달라 유출도 심해지고... 거기다 곡물가격까지 올라서 달라유출이 더 심해지고 있는 최악의 상황을 맞게 됩니다. 제조업을 활성화 시키지 못하면 아마도 高유가 高곡물가 高달라가치 이 3가지 현상에 맞물려서 초 인플레이션을 겪게될 가능성이 높습니다! 그런데... 위기의식을 느끼지 못하고 있는 좀비 대가리들이 너무 많습니다! 거의 모든 원자재를 수입에 의존하는 대한민국의 현실 지금 매우 심각한 상태입니다! 팔 걷어부치고, 머리 싸매고 제조업의 생산품을 수출하는데 총력을 기울여야 합니다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 부정선거를 고발하면 최대 포상금이 5억인데... 민주팔이그만 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11423008796 실제로는 고발을 하면 고발한 사실에 대해서 수사도 않고, 기소도 하지 않으면서 고발자를 피의자로 만들어서 공직선거법 위반이라고 하면서 벌금형 선고하는 나라다! 그리고 재판을 받으면서 안 사실인데... 재판을 하면서 심문도 하지 않고 검사는 구형을 하고 판사는 선고를 한다! 다시 말해서 심문도 하지 않는 재판을 하고 있다. 대한망국이 그렇다! 공무원새끼들과 언론인새끼들이 국민 상대로 부정선거를 대놓고 저지르고... 2년 넘게 아무런 증상도 없는 국민들을 감염병자 취급하면서 마스크 강제 착용시키고 백신도 강제 접종시키고, 반사회적 거리두기도 강제하고... 하면서 국민들을 상대로 대놓고 범죄를 저지르는 국가가 대한망국이다! ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 개,돼지처럼 살지 말고 좀 깨어났으면 좋겠네~~ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 도가의 책인 《음부경阴符经》 해설 褚遂良《阴符经》🐬🐬千余年流传，百余家注解，道家哲学书法墨迹 周观鱼Official channel https://youtu.be/CipeRybZ64U -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“대체 한국 시장만 왜 이래?”...'R의 공포'에 주가·원화값 또 연저점 중앙일보 추락하는 한국 증시에는 날개가 없다. 코스피와 코스닥은 22일에도 속절없이 무너졌다. 연저점을 또다시 썼다. 원화가치도 13년 만에 가장 낮은 수준까지 떨어지며 달러당 1300원 코앞까지 갔다. ‘I(Inflation·인플레이션)’의 공포가 ‘R(Recession·침체)’의 공포로 옮겨붙자 한국 시장이 제일 먼저 겁을 먹었다. 한국 시장이 ‘탄광 속 카나리아’가 된 모양새다. --->무슨 개소리야! 지금 미국도 불황으로 달려가고 있는데? 엉터리 케인스 정책의 결과이고, 미친 문죄인의 흥청망청 낭비와 반자본주의적 악법들 때문이다. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- voix/ 일베 댓글 동무, 놀고있네.. 경기하강이 정부교체 40여일만에 온다고라??? 문씹새가 원전폐기등 이단옆차기 산업정책과 나랏돈 존나리 풀고, 코로나로 공금망 좆되서 경제망조들게 만든거여.. 그래서 삼성도 골병든거고.... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 이양희가 김철근에서 꼬리 자르기를 할 수도 있어. 일베고양이 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11422837978 김철근은 자기 혼자 했다고 하고 이준석은 전화 통화 후 보름 정도 후에 각서는 작성해서 자기는 모른다고 하고.... 이런 이유로 이양희가 김철근만 징계하고 이준석은 개입했는지 확실하지 않아 징계를 하지 않거나 경고 수준의 처분을 할 수 있음. 7월 7일로 연기한 것도 이준석한테만 좋은 일이야. 윤리위도 제소 후 2개월이나 지나서 열지를 않나 열고도 징계를 안 하고 2주후로 미루지 않나 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 분석) 무슨 짓 하고 떠났나(8탄) 국민연금이 수상하다. 위기의 주범 시대정신연구소 https://youtu.be/rcUhGOMZsWE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 좌파 코스프레 끝판왕.jpg 미종접자 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11422815218 (서울=연합뉴스) 이정훈 기자 = 더불어민주당 박주민 의원이 23일 오전 국회에서 열린 정책조정회의에 한쪽 안경다리가 없는 안경을 착용한 채 참석해 있다. 일부러 안경테 없는거 끼고와서 경향 기자가 안경테 없다하니까 (이것도 서로 짠거같음) "일하느라 바빠서 몰랐다" "일해야죠"라고 개드립침 진짜 코스프레는 이새끼만한놈이 없는듯 --->저런 게 통한다고 생각하는 것도 대단하고, 저런 발상을 하는 자체도 대단하다! 코미디언들의 빰을 때리는 한국 좌파들의 거지 코스프레! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 매경 물가 난리인데…공무원까지 "월급 7% 올려달라" 빗속 시위 용산 대통령실 앞 빗속 시위 금리 상승해 더이상 못버텨 올해 실질임금 감소분 반영 물가 오른만큼만 올려달라 직무·성과급 도입도 반대 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 매경 [단독]공기업 직원 늘리더니…1억 육박 1인당 영업이익, 작년 150만원 고강도 쇄신 압박받는 공기업 36곳 전수조사해보니 재무개선 않고 채용만 늘려 5년새 영업익 1억서 수직낙하 공기업 2곳 중 1곳은 번 돈으로 이자비용조차 못내는 상황 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 중앙일보 "확 죽여버릴라" 전주시장 당선인의 폭언…"터질 게 터졌다" --->신임 광복회장(장준하의 장남)은 부정선거 항의에 권총을 꺼내 위협했다고 한다. 막가는 세상이 되었다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 문재인 탈원전 하는 사이 세계 원자력 순위 2 위에서 4 위 중국은 4 위에서 2 위로 껑충 DABO http://www.ilbe.com/view/11422885950 문재인 탈원전 하는 사이 세계 원자력 순위 2 위에서 4 위 중국은 4 위에서 2 위로 껑충 문재인 정부의 탈원전 정책으로 인해 국내 원전 산업 경쟁력이 하락하는 사이, 전 세계 원자력 발전량 중국 비중이 크게 확대된 것으로 나타났다. 풍력 산업에서도 상황은 마찬가지다. 작년 풍력 발전용 터빈 제조사 현황을 보면 글로벌 상위 기업 10개 사 중 6개 사가 중국기업으로 나타났다. 전경련 관계자는 “최근 몇 년간 대대적인 정부 지원을 바탕으로 중국의 재생에너지 산업이 급성장했다”며 “전 세계적으로 재생에너지 발전이 확대되는 상황에서 국내 기업의 글로벌 경쟁력 확보를 위해 투자세액공제비율 향상 등 기업 지원정책 개정이 시급하다”고 말했다. 대표적인 재생에너지로 꼽히는 태양광 발전의 경우, 밸류체인 상에서 중국 기업의 독점현상이 두드러졌다. 특히 태양광 발전 시스템 구축의 필수 부자재인 잉곳과 웨이퍼는 중국이 글로벌 시장의 95% 이상을 점유하고 있다. / 조선 요약 : 문가가 친중 하는동안 한국은 후퇴 중공놈들은 발전했다 재생에너지 노래를 부르고 지랄하더만 뭐 하나 발전한것도 없다 결국 탈원전 5 년 전기세만 오르고 한것은 좆도 없다 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 코로나 바이러스에 대한 정부의 거짓말에 대한 진실 12가지. 익명50마오 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11422899419 마이크 예돈 박사: 12가지 측면에서, 여러분의 정부는 코로나에 대해 거짓말을 했습니다. 1) 믿을 수 없을 정도로 치명적이지 않습니다. 사망률은 인플루엔자의 약 두 배이다. 2) 모든 사람이 감염될 수 있는 것은 아니다. 인구의 최소 30~50%가 교차 면역성을 가지고 있다. 3) 차별적이죠. 노인들이 젊은이들보다 더 위험하다. 4) 무증상 전염은 공포를 조장하기 위한 거짓이다. 5.) PCR 테스트는 진단 도구가 아닙니다. 6.) 마스크가 작동하지 않습니다. 7.) 봉쇄는 효과가 없고 해를 끼친다. 8.) 치료 가능합니다. 9.) 일단 회복되면 재감염될 것 같지 않아요. 10.) 천천히 변이한다. 어떤 변종도 자연 면역에서 벗어날 위험이 없다. 11.) 의학적 개입의 안전성이 효능보다 우선한다. 12) 4가지 유전자 기반 백신은 독성이 있다. Mike Yeadon 박사의 12가지 COVID 거짓말에 대한 자세한 정보 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 아이들이 죽임을 당할 때 왜 경찰들은 가만히 있을까? 경찰 문화는 경관의 안전에 집중되어 있다. 대중의 신임을 배신하는 행위를 해도, 경찰은 노조에 의해 보호되고, 정치인들은 세금으로 경찰 예산을 더 올려준다. Why Police Do Nothing While Kids Are Killed Ryan McMaken Police culture is fixated on "officer safety," and when police betray the public trust, they are protected by labor unions as politicians pad police budgets with even more tax money. -->현재 우리나라에서도 유사한 일들이 일어나고 있고, 앞으로 계속 일어날 일이다. 경찰이고 소방관이고 국가 또는 국민이 통제할 수 없는 괴물 집단이 되어 가고 있다. Here is an often-used tactic employed to defend government police organizations from criticism. Whenever critics point out police incompetence of abuse, defenders counter with: "The next time you need help, call a crack head!" This same phrase was used by Louisiana Senator John Kennedy when singing the praises of uniformed government bureaucrats in 2021. The phrase often produces many smug nods from the "Back the Blue" crowd, and one can buy T-shirts with this progovernment slogan as well. The reality however, is something quite different. Experience continues to teach us again and again, that when one encounters violent felons—as did the children in Uvalde, Texas—calling a crackhead may not produce results much worse than calling the police. A crack head is probably going to run the other direction when faced with a gun-toting maniac. As we learned at Uvalde, many police officers will do exactly the same. The "call a crackhead" propaganda is also especially insidious because it is designed to back the idea that "taxes are the price we pay for civilization" and the myth of the "social contract." In this supposed quid pro quo, the taxpayers pay their taxes, and then the government provides "public safety." That, at least, is the myth the regime repeats over and over. This myth is being exposed for what it is in real time in the Uvalde investigation right now. Each new revelation shows just how uninterested law enforcement officers can be in providing any of that "protection" they insist the taxpayers pay so much to fund. Rather, Uvalde has shown that the primary interest of law enforcement was officer safety, not public safety. So much for that "social contract" we keep hearing about. New Revelations Show Police Simply Chose to Do Nothing In the Texas Senate this week, senators and the public are starting to see what passes for police work in Texas. Although police spokesmen repeatedly claimed they could not engage the shooter because of a locked door, it turns out that was a lie. Reuters reported yesterday: The classroom door in the Uvalde elementary school where 19 children and two teachers were killed in May was not locked even as police waited for a key, Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven McCraw said on Tuesday. There was no evidence any law enforcement officer ever tried the classroom door to see if it was locked, McCraw said at a Texas Senate hearing into the shooting. "I don't believe based on the information we have right now that door was ever secured," McCraw said. "He (the shooter) didn't have a key … and he couldn't lock it from the inside." So, why did police wait outside so long? They claimed it was because they didn't have the equipment they needed. That also turned out to be a lie. Instead, the fact show, according to Steven McGraw at the Texas Department of Public Safety: "three minutes after the subject entered the building, there was a sufficient number of armed personnel to isolate distract and neutralize the subject…. the on-scene commander decided to place the lives of officers before the lives of children." Expect a Cover-Up Naturally, police personnel and their allies in local government have acted to conceal information on the police response from the public. The city's district attorney has intervened to prevent the release of "any records." Moreover, the Texas Department of Public Safety is pressuring the state's attorney general to ensure that body camera footage from the incident remains hidden—presumably forever because police rather conveniently claim the footage exposes police tactics to potential future shooters. No Accountability Unfortunately, legal recourse for police incompetence and inaction is virtually nonexistent in the US, and police have no legal or contractual obligation to protect anyone or do much of anything at all. Federal courts have made it clear police are simply not obligated to act to protect any member of the public. Police labor unions ensure police can easily deflect any legal woes related to "neglect of duty." In Texas specifically, little has been done to increase police accountability, such as making body camera footage more easily accessible. This has been done in some states such as Colorado. In Texas, however, police enjoy high political status and de facto political immunity from criticism. The routine solution for police issues in Texas is to hand more taxpayer money over to police. Police departments receive more taxpayer funding than anything else in Texas's largest cities. Contrary to claims that police budgets are being bled dry by left-wing activists, Texas's most left-wing city is increasing its police budget. The senate has passed passed legislation penalizing local governments that reduce police funding. The National Rifle Association's only response to the Uvalde shooting has been to call for more taxpayer money for police. Moreover, there is a rising narrative that the police are among the victims of the Uvalde debacle. On the Joe Rogan, show, for example, retired US Army employee and author Tim Kennedy blamed Uvalde on the "defund the police campaign." Kennedy argued police are subject to "demonization" and didn't receive enough money to be properly trained. On Bill Maher's Real Time, politician Michael Shellenberger said Americans should feel sorry for the police at Uvalde, mawkishly attempting to get the crowd on his side by stating "many of those police officers are having a hard time sleeping at night." Shellenberger then went on to say it is wrong to criticize "our institutions" when "they fail us" and "the answer to it is more training." The truth however, is the Uvalde police, like most police departments have received enormous amounts of training on school shootings and related events, with one training occurring just two months before the shooting. At the school on the day of the shooting, the police were better trained, better armed, and more numerous than the shooter. But no amount of training can overcome the realities of police culture, which increasingly leans toward favoring "officer safety" over public safety. As Ryan Cooper has shown in The American Prospect, "American police are taught first and foremost to fear for their own lives" The lives of school children? That's secondary. Cooper continues: But this horrifying story should come as no surprise. What it illustrates is simply the cowardly culture of American police in action. Contrary to the chest-thumping rhetoric of police unions, they are neither trained nor legally expected to protect citizens in danger. In the pinch, they frequently put their own safety above those they are charged with protecting—even elementary school kids…. [The police response at Uvalde is] the polar opposite of approved police tactics these days. After the Columbine shooting, where police waited outside for hours while a teacher bled to death, police are supposed to dash into the scene as fast as possible. They just didn’t do it. The reason is the powerful fear instilled by other parts of police training, as well as the overall police culture. That is, two important pillars of police training are at odds. One on hand, the training is to engage shooters. On the other hand, the training emphasizes that it is always a priority to ensure the police officer returns home safe. As explained by Ryan Grim, if this is the primary goal, the best tactic is to move more slowly to "reduce casualties"—namely, police casualties. The outcome is what we saw at Uvalde: police officers standing around waiting for more safety gear and more backup to ensure the police don't get hurt. Indeed, this attitude even broke through to the public when a Texas Department of Public Safety official Chris Olivarez admitted if they proceeded any further not knowing where the suspect was at, they could’ve been shot, they could’ve been killed, and that gunman would have had an opportunity to kill other people inside that school. In other words, the police had to protect themselves first, because if the police are hurt, then the suspect can do even more damage. There is a certain reasonable logic here of course, but it's in conflict with post-Columbine training. Moreover, the emphasis on officer safety may make police even less likely to put themselves in danger than an average person. After all, we frequently hear of good samaritans who put their own lives at risk to save children from drowning, traffic hazards, or other threats. Firemen rush into burning buildings to save people. These people have not been trained to focus on their own safety to the extent police have. Moreover, it's a safe bet that many of the desperate parents at Uvalde would have rushed into to confront the killer themselves had they not been assaulted, cuffed, and tazed by law enforcement officers at the site. Just the Latest Example Any criticism of police will arouse claims that any reports of police shortcomings are just a matter of "a few bad apples." Perhaps. But how do you know the local police in your town aren't among those police officers who will let children die to avoid harm to themselves? Will you bet your child's life on that? After, all Uvalde certainly isn't the only cautionary tale. Before Uvalde, at Parkland's Stoneman Douglas High School, the police ran and hid while students were slaughtered inside. The year before, it took police an hour and twelve minutes to respond to the 2017 Las Vegas shooter who killed more than fifty people as he opened fire on a crowd near the Las Vegas strip. Although hotel security had reported the location of the gunman—who had shot a security guard—even before the shooting began, local police agencies waited more than hour before entering the shooter's room. It remains unclear why the shooter stopped shooting after only about ten minutes, but we do know that he would have been free to keep shooting for a much, much longer period of time. In contrast to this sort of police "efficiency": in Arvada, Colorado, when a shooter opened fire in a crowded shopping district, the police ran for cover. The gunman was then shot dead by a private citizen with a gun. The police then came out of hiding and shot the good samaritan dead instead. Private gun owners saved countless lives at a Texas church in 2019 where church members were the ones who shot back at the assailant, and then chased him down in a high-speed pursuit. The police did nothing but write some reports afterward. Mere days after the police ran away in Uvalde, a woman in West Virginia saved lives by running toward danger to engage a gunman at a graduation party. In other words, when your training emphasizes over and over and over again that getting home safe at night is of primary importance, how can we be surprised that police seem even less inclined to take on personal risk than the average Joe when it comes to saving children? So, when faced with danger, should we "call a crackhead"? Probably not, but if heroics are necessary, an ordinary person with a gun may be a safer bet than calling people whose primary concern is officer safety. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

이창용 한은총재 “‘빅스텝’ 시간 두고 판단…한미 금리차 얽매일 필요 없다” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 물가안정목표 운영상황 점검 총재 기자간담회 이창용 지난달 금통위 이후 4주밖에 지나지 않았지만 적지 않은 물가 여건의 변화도 있었습니다. 미국의 인플레이션 정점 기대가 당초 예상보다 늦춰지면서 금융시장의 변동성이 커졌습니다. 또한 이후의 러시아산 석유 수입 제한 등으로 수급 차질 우려가 커짐에 따라 국제유가가 지난 금통위 직전 109달러 수준에서 6월 들어 평균 120달러 내외로 크게 상승하면서 지난 전망 당시의 전제치를 상당폭 웃돌고 있습니다. 이에 따라 향후 국내 소비자물가 오름세는 지난달 전망경로를 상회할 가능성이 큰 것으로 판단됩니다. 향후 물가 흐름과 관련하여 저희가 특히 우려하고 있는 것은 해외발 공급 충격의 영향이 장기화 될 수 있는 가능성입니다. 주요 글로벌 전망 기관들에 따르면 고유가 상황이 쉽게 해소되지 않을 것으로 보이고 높아진 국제 식량가격도 쉽게 꺾이지 않을 것으로 예상됩니다. 특히 국제 식량가격 상승에 따른 애그플레이션 현상은 하방 경직적이고 지속성이 높은 특성으로 인해 그 영향이 오래 이어질 가능성이 있습니다. 아울러 글로벌 공급망도 회복 시기가 늦춰지고 있는 상황입니다. 이러한 해외 공급측 요인의 영향이 오래 지속되면서 물가 상승 압력이 국내 여타 품목으로도 광범위하게 확산되고 있는 모습입니다. 이처럼 국내의 물가 상승 압력이 장기화될 가능성이 우려되는 상황에서 인플레이션 기대심리를 적절하게 제어하지 않을 경우 고물가 상황이 고착될 수 있습니다. 이미 단기 기대인플레이션이 물가목표인 2%를 넘어 3%를 상회하고 있는 가운데 장기 기대인플레이션은 2% 수준까지 상승하였습니다. 시장 기대를 반영한 기대인플레이션 지표도 높은 변동을 보이면서 꾸준히 상승하고 있습니다. 기대인플레이션이 불안해질 경우 물가가 임금을 자극하고, 이는 다시 물가 상승으로 이어지는 임금-물가간 상호작용이 강화될 수도 있습니다. 특히 에너지와 식료품은 경제 주체의 체감도가 높아 기대인플레이션에 미치는 영향이 크다는 점에서 유의할 필요가 있습니다. 다른 한편으로는 우크라이나 사태의 장기화, 중국의 성장 둔화, 주요국의 금리 인상 가속 등으로 연말로 갈수록 글로벌 경기의 하방 압력이 커지고 있습니다. 시장에서는 지난주 미 연준이 당초 예상보다 큰 폭의 금리 인상, 소위 자이언트 스텝을 단행하면서 미국 경기의 침체 가능성이 높아진 것으로 평가하고 있습니다. 이에 따라 향후 국내 경기의 불확실성이 높아지고 물가와 성장의 상충 관계가 더욱 커질 수 있습니다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ( 속보 ) 이준석 좃됐다! ㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷㄷ 가족오략관 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11422635421 시청자들에게 "이준석 끌어내린다"는 명분으로 22억이나 받아쳐먹고 뒤로는 "우리 이준석 대표님 잘 모시겠습니다" 박근혜 최순실을 존나게 씹었으면서, 정유라를 불러놓고 뻔뻔하게 눈물쑈까지하는 강용석 김대중을 2번이나 찍고 역대 대통령들 중에서 김대중을 가장 존경한다는 전라도 강용석 박근혜 최순실이 전력부담금까지 알았으면 그돈까지 다 해쳐먹었을거라고 쌍욕을 퍼부었던 강용석 박근혜를 "그네" 라고 조롱하면서 반드시 탄핵당해야 한다고 떠들었던 강용석 박근혜 최순실을 존나게 씹었으면서, 뻔뻔하게 정유라까지 불러놓고 눈물쑈하는 강용석 박근혜는 지애비 후광으로 잘나가는 거라고 조롱했던 강용석 가세연 시청자들을 얼마나 등신으로 봤으면 22억이나 받아쳐먹고 이준석한테 충성 맹세를 하냐? kuew7fi/ 일베 댓글 냄새나는 유부녀 보지 후비다가 고소당해서 수천만원 토해낸 병신새끼...ㅋㅋㅋ 강간으로 몰아가서 돈뜯어내자고 의뢰인한테 제안했다가 들켜서 빵에 갔다온 새끼 전형적인 절라도새끼 저런새끼한테 속아서 돈퍼준 틀딱 새끼들 경기지사 왜나왔겠냐? 보수표 갈라서 민주당 후보 당선시키라는 좆재명의 교시에 따라 지랄 떤거지 얼마나 받아처먹었을까? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 양극화의 원흉은 민노총임 배추무 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11422641484 기업을 협박해서 생산성 이상의 임금을 약탈해가니 기업입장에서는 비정규직을 통해 손해를 보충할수 밖에없다. 공무원이나 다른 기업들도 민노총의 임금 기준을 따라가니 (검사 10년차가 현대차 10년 생산직보다 많이 줘야할것 아니냐?) 근로자가 근로자를 착취하는 구조 전국에 임금의 양극화를 만들어 버림 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 한국이 곧 망할 수밖에 없는 이유.FACT unitBOT http://www.ilbe.com/view/11422597840 국민소득 5만불인 일본도 대졸신입이 220, 10년차가 330 정도받음. 임금에 비정상적 거품이 끼면 두가지 문제가 생김. 1. 인플레 악순환 시작. 곧 물가가 일본의 2배됨. 2. 기업의 고정비용이 증가시 흑자일 땐 버티지만 적자일 땐 고정비용때문에 부도남. 3. 짜장면집이 장사 잘돼서 월세 비싼데로 옮기고 직원 2배로 뽑고 월급 2배로 올려줬을 경우, 조금만 손님이 줄어도 휘청이는 정도가 아니라 지급불능이 된다는 말. 4. 문제는 고물가, 고임금 구조는 필연적으로 판매부진, 채용부진으로 이어지고 경기침체, 고실업으로 이어짐. 한계기업들부터 도산행렬이 이어지고 금융권에 타격이 가면 연쇄 대출회수가 일어나면서 IMF같은 사태가 벌어짐. 흑자부도. --->저것도 문제지만 망국의 결정적인 원인은 아니다. 그보다는 정부의 복지국가 정책, 관료주의, 자신의 이익이나 북한만 생각하는 소위 정치인들, 그리고 케인스의 인플레 정책이 가장 주요한 망국의 요인이다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 으아 이내가 장예찬 새끼한테도 페이스북 차단 먹었다아!!!!!!!!!!!!! 김치도시락 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11422592683 연일 여기저기 시사정보프로에 나와 이준석 후장 빨기 바쁘면서 자기는 저얼대 이핵관이 아니라고 하길래 페이스북에 팩트로 몇개 제시했더니 바로 차단 박힘ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 장예찬은 전공이 드러머라던데 정치판에 기웃대는것도 이해 할수 없고 이핵관 새끼들은 왜저렇게 한결 같냐? 이로써 페이스북에서 날 차단한 새끼들 리스트 업데이트됨 이준석 배현진 이재명 장예찬 이준석 성상납 및 뇌물 수뢰죄에 대한 증거 1. 이준석에게 직접 뇌물 및 성상납을 제공한 업자 5인 (증인) 2. 이준석에게 뇌물을 제공한 업체 대표 (증인) → 23일 경찰 출두후에 조사 예정 3. 이준석과 성상납을 제공한 업자의 육성 녹취록 4. 이준석의 변호인과 당대표 정무실장이 업자와 통화한 녹취록 5. 이준석의 이름과 범죄 사실이 명시된 재판 기록과 검찰 조서 6. 당대표 정무 실장과 비서팀장을 통해 범죄 사실 은닉과 조작을 위해 대전에 위치한 업자 방문할 당시의 녹취록 7. 범죄 사실 은닉을 위해 조작된 참고인 진술서 8. 가짜 진술서를 받아 내기 위해 참고인에게 작성해준 투자 약속 각서 9. 성상납 및 뇌물을 제공한 업자와 함께 대전 유성호텔로 들어가는 CCTV (공개전) 10. 성상납 받을 당시의 이준석 섹스 몰카 (공개전) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 서울신문 원숭이두창 '항문 통증' 추가 보고..첫 의심환자 발생 이날 미국 질병통제예방센터(CDC)에 따르면 원숭이두창 증상에 이전과 다른 증상이 보고됐다. 원숭이두창의 두창의 대표적인 증상으로 항문·직장 통증, 직장 출혈, 장염 또는 대변이 마려운 느낌이 추가됐다. 지금까지 알려졌던 원숭이두창의 대표적인 초기 증상은 발열, 두통, 근육통, 오한 또는 피로감이었다. 발진은 증상 발현 약 1~3일 뒤 얼굴을 시작으로 신체 다른 부위로 퍼졌다. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 권성동 “민주, 원구성 협상 조건으로 이재명 고소 취하 요구” 성창경 TV https://youtu.be/hgKQnC92llU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 칼 멩거: 경험주의 이론의 개척자 신문기자 시절 멩거의 일은 시장의 동향에 관해 글을 쓰는 것이었다. 그런데 그는 교과서에서 말하는 가격과 실제 시장의 가격이 큰 차이가 있다는 것을 알고 놀랐다. 연구를 거듭한 끝에 그는 그 원인이 소비자들의 가치 판단에 있다는 결론에 도달했다. 그는 이런 주제로 논문을 써서 교수 자격을 얻었고, 나중에는 <경제학 원론>이란 책을 썼다. 멩거는 상품, 가치, 교환, 가격, 화폐 등 경제 현상에 관한 연구를 자신의 책에 담았는데, 그는 이런 것들이 언제 어디서나 적용되는 법칙을 찾아냈다. 멩거의 방법은 특이했는데, 그는 경제 현상의 법칙들을 가장 단순한 사실에서 찾으려 했다. 그는 단순한 사실들을 경험적으로 확인할 수 있는 인간 경제의 요소라고 불렀는데, 그것은 개인의 욕구, 개인의 지식, 소유권, 개별적인 상품과 시간의 획득 그리고 개인들의 착오 등이다. 그는 이런 요소들이 모여 더 복잡한 시장의 현상, 즉 가격을 만들어낸다고 말한다. 그리고 이런 방법을 그는 경험적 방법이라 불렀고, 그것이 자연과학에서 쓰이는 방법과 같다고 말했다. 하지만 물론 멩거의 방법은 과학의 실험적 방법과는 확연히 다른 것이다. 멩거의 접근은 리카르도처럼 가공적인 명제나 인위적으로 만들어진 가격 수준, 자본가, 지주, 노동자 등에 의존한 경제학과는 확연히 다른 것이었다. 맹거의 책은 또 한계 효용 가치의 원리가 경제학에서 근본적이고 포괄적인 중요성이 있음을 보여주었다. 아담 스미스나 리카르도는 상품의 가격을 생산 비용에 준거하는 객관적 가격 이론을 만들었지만, 멩거는 가격 형성에서 소비자, 기업가, 중개인 등의 개인적이고 주관적인 판단이 가격 형성에 핵심이라는 주관주의적 입장을 취했다. 프랑스 혁명 이후 시작된 나폴레옹 시대는 대륙에서 고전적 자유주의적 운동을 억압했고, 그 덕분에 프랑스의 케네, 튀르고, 콩디악 등을 모두 제치고 영국의 아담 스미스가 경제학의 사부가 되었다. 독일에서는 리카르도를 배척하고 소극적으로 스미스를 받아들였는데, 이것이 나중에 역사학파에 이르러서는 경제 이론을 완전히 배척하기에 이르렀다. 가격 형성에서 주관주의적 면을 강조한 사람들은 16, 7 세기 스페인의 살라망카 학파인데, 멩거는 이들의 이론을 흡수했다. 살라망카 학파의 학설을 이전에 집대성한 사람은 스미스의 국부론과 같은 해에 <상업과 정부>란 책을 저술한 콩디악이었다. 멩거는 또한 생산 요소의 가치는 소비재의 가치에서 나오는 거라는 사실을 증명했다. 즉 포도주가 가치 있는 이유는, 그것이 가치 있는 땅과 노동으로 만들어졌기 때문이 아니라, 소비자들이 포도주에 가치가 있다고 보았기 때문이다. 멩거 이전에 독일의 누구도 한계 효용 가치의 중요성을 깨닫지 못했고, 누구도 완전히 통합된 주관주의 이론을 만들어내지 못했다. 멩거는 또 다른 책 Untersuchungen über die Methode der Sozialwissenschaften und der politischen Okonomie insbesondere (Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences with Special Reference to Economics)에서 그가 발견한 경제 법칙은 현실의 정확한 법칙이고, 역사학파의 방법으로는 그런 법칙을 찾을 수 없다고 주장했다. 칸트는 외계 사물에 대한 지식은 감각 경험, 특히 관찰을 통해서만 얻을 수 있다고 주장했는데, 그 이후로 독일의 대학에선 경험적 탐구를 강조했고, 그에 따라 학자들은 강의실을 나가 야외로 나가서 자연을 관찰했다. 알렉산더 훔볼트는 그 개척자 중의 한 사람이었다. 멩거와 함께 왈라스 제본스 3 사람이 거의 같은 시기에 한계효용의 법칙을 경제학에 적용했다고 알려졌지만, 멩거의 방법은 나머지 두 사람과 달랐다. 두 사람이 추종한 사람은 독일의 고센이라는 학자였다. 고센은 1854년 발표한 책에서 욕구와 만족이라는 2가지 기본적인 심리학적인 법칙을 천명했다. 첫 번째 법칙은 모든 상품의 소비에서 오는 만족은 일정한 지점에 이르면 최고에 달한다는 것이다. 두 번째 법칙은 개별 상품의 한계 소비를 통해 얻는 만족이 모두 동일하도록 상품을 소비해야 한다는 것이다. 멩거에게 가치란 개인의 심리학적인 기분을 가리키지 않는다. 그것은 개별 상품의 상대적인 중요성을 가리킨다. 예를 들면 사과, 배, 포도가 있을 때, 어떤 사람이 사과를 제일 중요하게 여기고 다음으로 배와 포도를 선호한다는 것이다. 그가 사과를 제일 중요하게 생각하는 건 사과가 자신의 현재의 복지를 높이는데 제일 우선으로 필요하다고 믿기 때문이다. 고센과 왈라스, 제본스는 경제학을 수학으로 만들기 위해 가공의 명제를 만들어냈다. 또 효용과 수용, 가격 등을 그래프와 대수학으로 표현하기 위해 그들은 모든 상품이 끝없이 나누어질 수 있다는 황당한 추정을 했다 Carl Menger: Pioneer of "Empirical Theory" Jörg Guido Hülsmann Introduction The problems and ideas that moved Ludwig von Mises in his early years were addressed by the work of four great economic theorists: Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, and Joseph Schumpeter. He knew all four personally, but Menger had retired from teaching a year before Mises discovered Menger's Principles. They met for the first time around 1910, when Mises was attending Böhm-Bawerk's seminar and preparing his first treatise, The Theory of Money and Credit. It was then customary that young men wishing to pursue an academic career in economics paid Menger a visit. He received them in his house amidst his impressive library and had them talk about their work and projects.1 Menger was born in 1840 in the Galician town of Neu-Sandez (today located in Poland). His father was a lawyer from a family of army officers and civil servants; his mother came from a rich Bohemian merchant family that had moved to Galicia. His full name was Carl Menger Edler von Wolfesgrün, but he and his brothers—the influential politician Max and the socialist legal scholar Anton—did not use their title of nobility.2 Menger was a fascinating and energetic personality. Intellectually vigorous into his old age, he was a true polymath in his youth.3 He had studied law and government science first in Prague and then in Vienna. One of his teachers at the University of Vienna was Peter Mischler, a champion of marginal-value theory, but apparently Menger was not then interested in economics or an academic career. He preferred non-academic writing and in 1863 worked as a journalist for the Lemberger Zeitung. Around 1864, he began preparing for a doctorate in law and government science and passed the first exam in March 1865. Even at this point his new academic commitment was overshadowed by his literary pursuits.4 When he passed the last of his four doctoral exams, in March 1867, he was in the process of writing several comedies.5 His literary interest was more than academic. Menger founded the journal Wiener Tagblatt, which first appeared on November 26, 1865. In an early issue, he began publishing an anonymous novel with the scandalous title Der ewige Jude in Wien (The Eternal Jew in Vienna).6 In March 1866, he joined the economics staff of another Vienna journal, the Wiener Zeitung. This paper was "a pure government organ, controlled by the Council of Ministers and in particular by the President's Office of the Ministry of the Interior. The editorial staff was selected by the government, official articles were written in the ministries, and edited and submitted by the Council of Ministers."7 Thus Menger became a government employee in a fast-track position that offered prospects to reach the highest strata within the Austrian civil service.8 A government position carried great prestige and was highly coveted by the young elites. Competition was fierce even for lesser positions. To succeed one needed Protektion—the friendly ear of someone sufficiently high in the government's pecking order to influence the nomination. In Menger's case, the initial Protektion might have come through his brother Max, but Carl quickly learned to stand on his own. One of his tasks as an officer of the Wiener Zeitung was to write market surveys. As he later told his disciple, Friedrich von Wieser, this was his practical introduction to price theory.9 He was struck by the discrepancy between the actual pricing process as explained by traders and the standard textbook explanations he had learned at the university. Upon closer inspection, he came to believe that prices ultimately depended on the value judgments of consumers. It was with this thesis that he eventually earned his Habilitation (the traditional central-European university professor's credential) in government science.10 In 1871 he published his work under the title Grundsätze der Volkswirtschaftslehre (Principles of Economics). In his book Menger presented a theoretical study of fundamental economic phenomena such as economic goods, value, exchange, prices, commodities, and money. He explained the properties of these phenomena and the laws to which they are subject at all times and places. This is of course what good economics textbooks always did and still do. What made Menger's book special is the method he used in his explanations. He tried to trace the causes of the properties and laws under scrutiny back to the simplest facts. His purpose was to demonstrate that the properties and laws of economic phenomena result from these empirically ascertainable "elements of the human economy" such as individual human needs, individual human knowledge, ownership and acquisition of individual quantities of goods, time, and individual error.11 Menger's great achievement in Principles consisted in identifying these elements for analysis and explaining how they cause more-complex market phenomena such as prices. He called this the "empirical method," emphasizing that it was the same method that worked so well in the natural sciences.12 To the present reader, this label might be confusing, since it is not at all the experimental method of the modern empirical sciences. Menger did not use abstract models to posit falsifiable hypotheses that are then tested by experience. Instead, Menger's was an analytical method that began with the smallest empirical phenomena and proceeded logically from there. This put Menger in a position to consider market exchanges and prices as macrophenomena and to explain how they are caused by atomistic, but empirically ascertainable "elements of the human economy" situated in an economic microcosm of individual needs and the marginal quantities owned and acquired. In Menger's words, prices were "by no means the most fundamental feature of the economic phenomenon of exchange," but "only incidental manifestations of these activities, symptoms of an economic equilibrium between the economies of individuals."13 As later works and correspondence revealed, Menger was fully aware that his most important innovation was the consistent application of the new "empirical method," which he also called the "exact method," the "analytical-synthetic" or the "analytical-compositive" method. In a February 1884 letter to Léon Walras, criticizing Walras's claim that there was a mathematical method of economic research, Menger wrote: It is rather necessary that we go back to the most simple elements of the mostly very complex phenomena that are here in question—that we thus determine in an analytical manner the ultimate factors that constitute the phenomena, the prices, and that we then accord to these elements the importance that corresponds to their nature, and that, in keeping with this importance, we try to establish the laws according to which the complex phenomena of human interaction result from simple phenomena.14,15 Only in this manner was it possible accurately to describe the essence of economic phenomena, and not just the contingent quantitative relationships in which they might stand with other phenomena at certain times and places. Referring to the disagreements between his theory of prices and the price theory of his French correspondent, Menger argued that real-life experience was the only legitimate way to decide the points under contention. The merit of a theory "always depends on the extent to which it succeeds in determining the true factors (those that correspond to real life) constituting the economic phenomena and the laws according to which the complex phenomena of political economy result from the simple elements." Menger continues: A researcher who arrives by the way of analysis at such elements that do not correspond to reality or who, without any true analysis, takes his departure from arbitrary axioms—which is only too often the case with the so-called rational method—falls necessarily into error, even if he makes superior use of mathematics.16 The empirical foundation of Menger's approach contrasted sharply with the Anglo-Saxon approach of that time, which was inspired by Ricardo's Principles and relied on fictitious postulates and on such arbitrarily constructed aggregates as price level, capitalists, landowners, and laborers. But Menger's approach also contrasted with the dominant fashions on the Continent and in particular in Germany, where economists—in the manner of historians—treated observed complex phenomena such as market prices as the starting point for their analysis rather than trying to explain them as resulting from more fundamental factors. In one stroke, Principles of Economics departed from both paradigms. Menger had found the delicate balance needed to develop economic theory that remained in touch with the real world. The comprehensive architecture of his book also showed that the principle of marginal value, which had played only an obscure role in earlier theories, is of fundamental and all-pervasive importance in economic science. The core of Menger's book is the chapter on value, which consumes a quarter of its pages. While financial analysts of Menger's experience stressed subjective factors in price formation—the personal judgment of consumers, entrepreneurs, traders on the stock exchange, etc.—academic economists relegated these subjective factors to a secondary position beneath supposedly objective factors independent of human perceptions. The British classical economists (Adam Smith and David Ricardo, most notably) had created a thoroughly objectivist price theory that sought to explain the natural or long-run prices of all goods by reference only to the costs of production, particularly the cost of labor. According to this labor theory of value, subjective factors can cause actual market prices to deviate from "correct" prices, but only temporarily and never by enough to outweigh the impact of the objective costs of labor. The value of a product was therefore ultimately one of its inherent qualities, just like weight or volume. It was "in" the good rather than an accidental feature that stemmed "from outside." The writings of Smith and Ricardo were overwhelmingly successful in the Anglo-Saxon countries, and had made great inroads on the European continent. The French Revolution had shifted the center of economic research and learning from the Continent to Britain. The Napoleonic era was particularly effective in suppressing the classical-liberal movement on the Continent. Public attention naturally shifted to Adam Smith, the patron saint of the still-vigorous British branch of the movement. Smith became the main authority on economic theory, displacing Quesnay, reducing Turgot to a footnote, and condemning Condillac to oblivion. But his popularity as the intellectual leader of political liberalism did not help Smith in Germany. German economists were far less receptive to the Smithian message than were their peers in the West. German economists tended to be government employees and abhorred unbecoming political affiliations. Wilhelm Roscher, a great historian of economic thought and one of the leading German economists of the nineteenth century, famously observed that it was "a national peculiarity of the Germans … to deviate from the rule of free trade, which has been imported from England and France, through numerous exceptions made for government interventionism."17 The German professors read Adam Smith, even read him attentively, but only to dismiss his views as lacking solid foundations. And while they did recognize Smith as an authority in the field, wrongheaded or not, they dismissed Ricardo almost out of hand. Smith's errors were debatable, but in Ricardo they found no scientific merit whatsoever. This preference for Smith over Ricardo grew stronger over the next century and culminated in the works of the very influential Younger Historical School, which rejected economic "theory" altogether.18 In his Principles, Ricardo had invented what today would be called macroeconomics, stressing the relationships between various aggregates such as price levels, average wages, average profits, but also between social aggregates such as laborers, capitalists, and landowners. On the basis of his insights about the relationships between such aggregate variables, he made the case for a far-reaching laissez-faire program. This approach did not meet with enthusiasm among German social scientists. Ever since the French revolutionary army had invaded Germany under the bloody banner of abstract human rights, Germans tended to be suspicious of sweeping political programs derived from theory without basis in observed reality. Under the trauma of the French Revolution, nineteenth-century German historians, jurists, and government scientists tended to stress the particular conditions of concrete human communities, rather than focus on features of an unobservable humanity en masse. Ricardo did have an extremely able advocate in Jean-Baptiste Say, who was indefatigable in his efforts to promote British classical economics. Say's Traité d'économie politique is a masterpiece in its own right, in many ways more sophisticated than the books of Smith and Ricardo. Say gave an axiomatic exposition of Smithian economic science, enhancing enormously the prestige of the Scotsman's unsystematic Wealth of Nations.19 He refined the British economists' focus on whole classes or aggregates of goods, sub-dividing economic science into a macroeconomic trilogy: production, distribution, and consumption of consumers' goods in general. Most important, he gave classical economics an appealing epistemological justification, showing it to be rooted in common experience. This empirically oriented methodology made much more sense to Continental scholars and convinced them that there was a scientific case to be made for Ricardian economics and the political program it seemed to entail. Say was the central figure in the promotion of British economics on the European continent, but he clearly owed a far greater intellectual debt to the scientific tradition of his own country.20 By the mid-nineteenth century, thanks to the efforts of Say, British economics had become the academic orthodoxy of Europe and America. It was against the background of this orthodoxy that Menger worked on a restatement of the explanation of the pricing process. In developing his theory of value and prices, Menger relied on the remnants of an ancient price theory from the late-Scholastic School of Salamanca, which in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries had stressed precisely those subjective features of the pricing process that were conspicuously absent from the British classical school. But the Spanish late-scholastics never produced a treatise on economics, and their discoveries about the nature of value and prices were scattered across thousands of pages.21 The subjectivist theory of value survived only in this diffused form with one important exception: Etienne de Condillac's great treatise, Commerce and Government. Published in the same year as Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776), Condillac's treatment gave the first full axiomatic presentation of political economy on the basis of the subjectivist theory of value. But the impact of his work was minimal because French economists rejected it. Condillac was already a famous philosopher when he published the book, and did not deem it necessary to follow the conventions of the disciples of Quesnay; rather, he presented his thoughts in an independent and original manner—an offense, it turns out, serious enough to prevent the translation of his work into English for more than 200 years.22 Still, Commerce and Government was one of the main sources of inspiration for Menger (who of course read French, among other languages) when he elaborated his economic value theory.23 Menger pointed out that value can only come into existence once human beings realize that economic goods exist and that each of them has a personal—or, as Menger would say "subjective"—importance. Most importantly, value always concerns the concrete units of a good, that is, the "marginal" units under consideration, like one cup of water, four loaves of bread, three diamonds, two glasses of milk, etc. It never concerns the total available stock of these goods, except when decisions are actually made about the total stock. This insight is the key to solving an apparent paradox of the subjectivist theory of value, which had prevented a wider acceptance of the theory. If the price of a good really depends on the subjective importance of the good, then how is it that water, which is essential to human survival, commands a far lower price than diamonds, which are much less important than water? This apparent paradox played in favor of the labor theory of value, virtually the only alternative to the subjectivist approach. Whatever the problems of the labor theory of value, it did not contradict reality as strikingly as its subjectivist competitor. Menger showed that the paradox is only apparent: it vanishes as soon as we stop asking about the value of entire classes of goods, which are economically irrelevant because they are not subject to human decision-making. If we ask instead about the laws that rule the evaluation of individual units of a good, the answer becomes clear. Water is so abundant that it not only serves to satisfy the most important—and thus most highly valued—human need for water, but also far less important needs for water, such as decorative fountains; it is the value of the least important but still satisfied need that determines the economic value of every unit of water, which therefore commands a low market price. By contrast, diamonds are so rare that the available supply can only satisfy the most important needs for them, and as a consequence they are very expensive. Menger also showed that the value of factors of production is always derived from the value of consumer goods and not the other way around. Contrary to the assertion of cost-of-production theorists, a bottle of wine is not valuable because it has been produced with valuable land and valuable labor; the land and the labor invested in winemaking are valuable in the first place because consumers value the bottle of wine. Finally, Menger argued that the microphenomenon of value exists independent of any social system of the division of labor. Thus he starts analyzing the macrophenomena of exchange, prices, and money only after his chapter on value. In the light of Menger's analysis, the market economy appeared as one great organism geared toward the satisfaction of consumer needs. Not only the market prices, but also the institutions of the market such as money are part and parcel of a rational order that can exist and operate without needing the assistance of political authorities. In a way, Menger delivered a complement to Condillac's thesis that human needs are the great regulator of all human institutions. Condillac had made his case from an economic and, most famously, from an epistemological point of view, arguing that perceptions are determined by needs.24 He lacked the important element of marginalism, however, and it was on this that Menger built a complete and thorough revision of economic science. Menger's Work in the German Context The ancient subjectivist theory of value had survived in fragmentary form in nineteenth-century German economic writings.25 In this context, the young economist from Vienna was seen as a reformer rather than a revolutionary, thus avoiding the fate of Condillac. Before Menger, various German economists had criticized the labor theory of value specifically and rejected the doctrine of inherent value in general. Menger's view that value was subjective (personal, individual) in nature was not exceptional among German authors of the first half of the nineteenth century. Indeed, some of them even knew the principle of marginal subjective value.26 But their insights were merely disconnected observations. None of Menger's German predecessors recognized the central importance of marginal value and none had produced a unified subjectivist theory. In the 1860s, two unconnected layers of analysis subsisted in the German textbooks. Their price theories typically featured cost-of-production explanations as a dominant component and allowed for an incoherent coexistence with the traditional subjective-value explanations.27 Karl Marx heaped scorn and ridicule on this blatant display of eclecticism. He was right to do so. Menger took what was no more than hinted at in the writings of his predecessors and presented it in a systematic treatise that revolutionized the profession's view on the relations between human needs, value, and prices. Through the systematic attempt to look for the causes of these relations in the simplest facts open to empirical inquiry (the "elements of the human economy"), Menger put the discussion of needs, goods, economic systems, production, prices, income, consumption, etc. on completely new ground. The contrast to his eclectic German predecessors could not have been greater. Their eclecticism was reinforced by tendencies Menger avoided. In particular, German economists tended to engage in excessive and often pointless record keeping and classification of economic phenomena, an inclination that reflected the political climate of the time. The restoration of monarchy and the concomitant fight against liberalism between 1815 and 1848 made it imprudent to delve too deeply into theoretical considerations, which might lead to a critical appraisal of the limits of government. As William Johnston said: "At a time when it was forbidden to debate matters of fundamental principle, scholars retreated into collecting data."28 The record-keeping approach to economic analysis reached its climax by the end of the century with the ascension of the Younger Historical School. As did many other academic employees of the new German central state, they saw themselves as "the intellectual bodyguards of the House of Hohenzollern."29 A related German shortcoming that Menger scrupulously avoided was historicism—the tendency to regard regularities in economic phenomena as "historical laws"—that is, as conditioned by the particular circumstances of time and place. Though the German economists of those days would have agreed with Menger that all economic phenomena were somehow related to one another and that one of the purposes of economic science was to find out what that relationship was, Menger's analysis revealed that these relationships were laws that held true at all times and places; moreover, he showed that they could be studied without reference to the concrete historical context. His book featured many concrete illustrations of the general laws under discussion, but in essence Menger's Principles was an exercise in pure theory. Methodenstreit Meanwhile, in the universities of the German Reich, a vigorous movement had emerged that pursued an agenda diametrically opposed to Menger's view and advocated a radical break with the traditional approach in economic science.30 While Menger sought to turn economic theory into an analytical science, the young radicals in Berlin pursued a complete overthrow of theoretical research, replacing it instead with historical studies. The leader of this group was Gustav Schmoller, a young professor from the University of Halle.31 Schmoller's great goal, overriding all his theoretical and methodological concerns, was to combat the growing intellectual and practical influence of laissez-faire liberalism in Germany. His strategy was to promote the discussion of the "social question"—by which he meant the question of how government could promote the welfare of the working classes. That the government could and should promote working class welfare was taken for granted. Schmoller put his strategy into practice through an association of like-minded intellectuals and political leaders, most of whom were university professors and civil servants. In October 1872, he convened a first national meeting of "men of all parties of whom it can be assumed that they have interest in, and moral pathos for, the [social] question and that they do not believe the absolute laissez faire et laissez passer to be the right thing as far as the social question is concerned."32 Schmoller and two others who would become long-time leaders of the group—the Breslau professor Lujo Brentano and the Berlin statistician Ernst Engel—addressed the meeting with lectures on strikes and labor unions, on German factory laws, and on the housing question. The distinct anti-market and pro-government orientation of these university professors quickly earned them the sobriquet of Kathedersozialisten, or "Socialists of the Chair."33 Significantly, their first meeting took place in the city of Eisenach, which in the same year had hosted the founding convention of the Sozialistische Partei Deutschlands (Socialist Party of Germany). Because the SPD was the very first socialist party in the world, Eisenach had become the symbol of the organized socialist movement. The group now founded the Verein für Socialpolitik (Association for Social Policy) with the explicit purpose of promoting welfare policies of the new German central state. The first president was Erwin Nasse, a professor from Bonn. Schmoller, who in 1872 had been a young man, became Nasse's successor in 1890 and remained president until his death in 1917.34 The Verein organized plenary meetings, which took place every other year, and meetings of an elected committee (Ausschuss). These meetings had a deep, and often immediate, impact on German policies because they provided a neutral territory for the representatives of the most powerful organized groups. University professors, labor union officials, high-ranking civil servants, and entrepreneurs met in the Verein, got to know one another, and forged political compromises on the issues of the day. The strong practical orientation was also visible in the Verein's publication series. Each volume addressed a different pressing social problem, analyzed its symptoms, and invariably ended with a call for government action. Ralph Raico states: Many of the 134 intensively researched volumes that were published until 1914 virtually served as indictments of various flaws and grievances of the existing system, and each of them called for government action…. The main goal of the Socialists of the Chair, namely, to change public opinion within the educated bourgeoisie and especially within the bureaucracy, was attained to a large extent.35 Through these activities, the Verein became one of the most important vehicles for the consolidation and expansion of the new German government's civil service. The professors and the other civil servants saw themselves as neutral mediators among the various contesting social groups. Every solution to any perceived social problem invariably involved either their active participation, or their intermediation.36 As they saw it, they promoted political compromise between the Left and Right, democracy and monarchy, utilitarianism and justice, laborers and entrepreneurs.37 They considered themselves neutral arbiters because they considered these conflicts from the "higher" point of view of the new central government, which represented the entire nation. The era of the Verein für Socialpolitik coincided with the heyday of German political centralization. Starting in the early 1890s, however, the government began to turn its back on the Verein. Its constant agitation for left-wing political reform had been too successful, and it risked losing its reputation for political neutrality.38 For a while, Schmoller managed to steer against this trend, but the Verein's very success eventually spelled its doom. At the end of the nineteenth century, it had already attracted a great number of intellectuals and social leaders such as Max Weber, Ludwig Pohle, and Andreas Voigt who were in principle opposed to the Verein's blind pro-government prejudices and had joined only because of its practical importance.39 Under the leadership of Max Weber, these men repeatedly clashed with the Verein establishment over the question of scientific "proof" in political matters; after World War I, Weber's followers would forever change the character of the Verein, turning it into a purely academic institution. "While Menger sought to turn economic theory into an analytical science, the young radicals in Berlin pursued a complete overthrow of theoretical research, replacing it instead with historical studies." But in its glory days of the late 1870s and 1880s, the Verein and in particular the person of Gustav Schmoller completely transformed the landscape of German-language economic science. Schmoller also had a lasting influence on German economics through his personal friendship with Friedrich Althoff, a high-ranking civil servant in Prussia's Ministry of Education, who from 1882–1907 controlled the nominations to the chairs of political economy in Prussian universities. It soon became obvious that to obtain a full professorship one had to subscribe without qualifications to the program defined in Schmoller's writings. Although Schmoller's agenda was targeted primarily against the heroes of the free-trade movement—classical economists such as Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, and David Ricardo—it effectively killed the teaching of any type of economic theory in German universities. The so-called Younger Historical School under Schmoller went far beyond the healthy skepticism of theoretical abstractions that had characterized the works of the previous generation of German economists. The Schmollerites denied outright that there were any universal social laws at all: there were only certain regularities that changed with the changing institutions of society. The job of government science was only incidentally to study these context-dependent regularities. Its essential task was to study the concrete meaning of the "idea of justice" at a given time and place, because this was the true basis of the "principle of social reform"—adjusting the existing social institutions to the prevailing feelings of what was right and just.40 Schmoller thus advocated radical relativism and radical legal positivism, the most suitable doctrines for justifying his belief in and adoration of omnipotent government. Carl Menger had followed the growth of the Schmoller movement for some years. He realized that under the supervening influence of the Younger Historical School, Germany and Austria (which was fully in Germany's intellectual orbit) were in the process of destroying the work of a century of economic scholarship. Menger's first treatise fell on deaf ears. It had found followers in Austria, but this was due in part to his personal influence on academic nominations. The German universities were impenetrable. Menger decided to lay the foundation for future works in positive economic analysis through a systematic methodological defense of his new approach.41 The result of these efforts was another great book, Untersuchungen über die Methode der Sozialwissenschaften und der politischen Okonomie insbesondere (Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences with Special Reference to Economics).42 Menger insisted that the economic laws he had discussed were "exact" laws of reality, and that the methods of historical research were entirely unable to discover such economic laws. These views could not fail to offend the historicist sensibilities of the academic establishment, which were especially strong among economists of Menger's own generation. In fact, while historicism was already noticeable in the works of the Older Historical School (Roscher, Knies, Hildebrand, and others), in the writings of the Younger Historical School (Schmoller, Lexis, and others) it had become a dogma. Schmoller published a highly critical review of Menger's Investigations, claiming that Menger had neglected to substantiate his analysis with fitting historical studies; in today's jargon, Menger had indulged in an exercise in pure theory, which lacked "empirical evidence" in its support. This attack could have led to sober scholarly debate if Schmoller had not tried to stigmatize his opponent by labeling his approach the "Mancunian-individualistic method," associating Menger with the supposedly discredited Manchester School.43 The debate between Menger and Schmoller soon drew their disciples into a heated exchange, during which even the grand old man of German economics, Wilhelm Roscher, heaped scorn on Menger.44 This collective exchange involved several more articles and books.45 Its unusually polemical and emotional character resulted from the fact that for Schmoller, any kind of economic theory strengthened the case for capitalism.46 The debate culminated in 1895, when Menger's last great student, Richard Schüller, published his Habilitation thesis in which he refuted point by point the criticism of the classical economists that Bruno Hildebrand had expressed in his inaugural lecture at the University of Vienna.47 In spite of the heated atmosphere in which it took place, the debate on method between Menger and Schmoller was useful for the clarification of the differences between theoretical and applied economic research. While it did not produce any lasting or definitive results, it did renew interest in the topic and highlighted the importance of certain fundamental distinctions that later economists, philosophers, and historians such as Max Weber, Heinrich Rickert, Ludwig von Mises, and Alfred Schütz would develop. Of particular concern would be the distinction between the fundamentally different natures of natural science, history, and economics. What is less often seen is that the opposition that rallied all "theorists" behind Menger and all "historians" behind Schmoller caused some important differences within each group to be neglected. This was bound to promote confusion especially within the ranks of the theorists, who tended to be seen (and to see themselves) as adhering to "the" economic theory, where they in fact held significantly different notions of the subject matter and contents of their science. Menger's unique contribution tended to be perceived as only one part of a broad consensus on the main outline of "the" new economic theory. Menger did not share this perception. The Austrian School and the Gossen School With just two books, Menger had put economic and social thought on completely new foundations. Principles pioneered the application of the empirical method in economic theory, and Investigations had justified the method and clarified the relationship between the resulting theory and other social sciences. Economic science was no longer just the study of visible economic phenomena such as prices, money, production; it had become instead the study of how these phenomena were caused by the interaction between human ideas and an environment offering limited resources for the satisfaction of human needs. It took some time for both his opponents and his followers to grasp the full impact of the Mengerian revolution. For his contemporaries, the Mengerian project was attractive for reasons other than the grand new vision it implied. In particular, it was Menger's unique analytical method of developing economic theory as a descriptive science of the real world that attracted young disciples. Menger's "empirical method" fit the ideal of its day. Schools and universities had thoroughly prepared the young scientific elite to appreciate the virtues of empirical research. More than the universities of other countries at that time, Germany's institutions of higher learning insisted on the necessity of empirical investigations in virtually all fields. Surprisingly, this orientation was the product of the "idealist" philosophy of Immanuel Kant, which stressed that knowledge about the objects of the exterior world could only be gained through sensory experience, and in particular through observation. German scientists were more willing than others to leave their armchairs and offices for field research to engage in systematic observation of nature. The famous Alexander von Humboldt was a pioneer of this movement, but others soon began to follow. German science excelled in biology, physics, chemistry, medicine, history, and virtually all other fields of knowledge.48 In the field of political economy, however, which was usually taught under the name of government science, the call for an empirical foundation had led to the idealization of historical research. The historicists claimed that there was no other social science but history, and that economic theory, insofar as it had scientific merit at all, had to be a generalization of historical findings. In this context, Menger's approach appeared as an attractive alternative because it showed that economic theory was an independent discipline that could be studied in its own right without abandoning the empirical agenda. The power of this message even attracted scholars of historicist background who had no personal contact with Carl Menger. A case in point was young Ludwig von Mises. Steeped as he was in the prejudices of interventionism and in the quest for a truly scientific foundation for economic policy, Mises would not have found Ricardo convincing. But Menger convinced him that there was such a thing as a scientific economic theory—a body of propositions about empirical reality, distinctly different from the propositions derived from historical research. Mises yielded to the evidence and became a Mengerian, and he would remain one the rest of his life. In later works, Mises would modify, generalize, and qualify Menger's views. In particular, he became famous for his interpretation of the epistemological status of the propositions of economic science, that is, for his claim that these propositions are true on a priori grounds and therefore cannot be verified or refuted by the evidence of the senses. But these claims were attempts to clarify the position that Mises had inherited from Menger. The difference between Menger's Aristotelian rhetoric and the Kantian phrasing used by Mises is glaring, but the difference is mainly rhetorical. The principal thread of continuity between Menger and Mises is an adherence to the same scientific program of developing economic theory as a descriptive discipline, distinct from other descriptive disciplines such as biology or history. Both Menger and Mises believed that their theories described certain general features of human action that exist and operate at all times and places. This is what set them fundamentally apart from Wieser and Schumpeter, and this is what still sets Mengerian economists apart from all other economists. Menger's method is also what most sharply distinguished him from Léon Walras and William Stanley Jevons, two authors with whom Menger is often conflated as co-founders of the marginal-utility approach in price theory. It is true that these three men published at about the same time systematic expositions of price theory based on the subjective and marginal nature of value. But apart from a broad agreement on these basic ideas, Menger's theory does not have much in common with the other two.49 Walras and Jevons had to overcome great obstacles in expounding their principles. Neither had the German subjectivist tradition to draw on, and both met with fierce resistance from the academic establishment. As far as originality and scientific merit are concerned, however, they cannot compare with Menger.50 Unlike Menger, Jevons and Walras had a specific predecessor, albeit an obscure one, whom they acknowledged and praised: the independent German scholar Hermann Heinrich Gossen had anticipated their central tenets and their approach to price theory. By following Gossen, Jevons and Walras developed a marginal-utility theory of prices that was markedly less successful at describing observed reality than was Menger's marginal-value approach. The differences between Menger on the one hand, and Gossen, Jevons, and Walras on the other, might seem arcane, but they came to play a major role in the development of Austrian economics, and it is against this background that one must appreciate the significance of Mises's contributions. Gossen had worked for twenty years on a manuscript that he published in 1854 under the title Entwickelung der Gesetze des menschlichen Verkehrs (Deduction of the Laws of Human Interrelationships).51 In this work he combined two central ideas into a general treatise on human behavior. . First, Gossen thought that economic science concerned laws that rule human psychology as it relates to human action. The most fundamental psychological laws, he claimed, were two laws of want-satisfaction that later came to be known as Gossen's First and Second Law. According to the First Law, the satisfaction derived from the consumption of any good will at some point reach a maximum. Neither higher nor lower consumption will produce greater satisfaction. According to the Second Law of Gossen, all goods should be consumed in such quantities that the contribution to overall satisfaction through the marginal consumption of each good is exactly equal. Second, Gossen sought to describe human action with algebra and graphs, and relied on several implicit and false postulates in order to attain this goal. For example, he postulated that value is measurable and that the values of different persons can be meaningfully combined. It was this procedure that made his approach especially contestable in the eyes of the academic establishment of German economists who abhorred speculations disconnected from the observed world. Gossen's book also suffered from grave formal shortcomings, being written in one continuous text, without chapter headings or a table of contents. This format and his excessive use of algebra and graphs made his work a tedious and distasteful reading experience. It fell into oblivion where it probably would have remained were it not for W.S. Jevons. When Jevons published the first edition of his Principles of Political Economy (1871), he considered his theory unprecedented. In 1878, Professor Adamson, Jevons's successor at Owens College in Manchester, came across a reference to Gossen's book in a history of economic thought and informed his friend Jevons, who celebrated Gossen in the preface to the second edition of his Principles (1879).52 Walras was even more enthusiastic than Jevons. He compared Gossen to Copernicus and Newton, and translated Gossen's book into French.53 When Menger told him in a letter that he believed there were significant differences between his own approach and that of Gossen, Walras waxed indignant and replied that he found it "odious" to think that Menger would refuse to recognize such an important predecessor.54 Gossen had indeed anticipated Jevons's and Walras's theories.55 The three men had developed general theories that were analogous to Menger's general theory of value and prices, but differed from it in their psychological orientation and in the exact type of explanation they offered. In Menger's theory, the term 'value' does not refer to a psychological feeling, but rather to the relative importance for an individual of the marginal unit of good X—that is, to the importance of X in comparison to the marginal units of other goods Y and Z. The market price of a good results from the interplay of sellers and buyers, for whom the goods bought and sold have different relative importance. In contrast, in the theories of the other three authors, the price of a good results from the interplay of sellers and buyers whose feelings or well-being are differently affected by control of the good. While Menger explained the pricing process as resulting from the importance of a good relative to the importance of other goods, Gossen, Jevons, and Walras explained the pricing process as the impact of a marginal quantity of a good on the psychology of the actor—an impact they called want-satisfaction (Gossen), utility (Jevons), and satisfied needs (Walras). Jevons's marginal utility thus played structurally the same role that marginal value played in Menger's theory—it delivered an explanation of market prices—but where marginal utility explains the price of a good by the good's direct impact on human feelings, Menger's marginal value explains the price of a good by how the good ranks in importance compared to other goods, according to the needs of the individuals involved in the pricing process. In the psychological approach of Gossen, Jevons, and Walras, the human psyche was the great common denominator for the economic significance of all goods; in the theory of Menger, there was no such common denominator. In his approach, "value" cannot be independent of the specific circumstances of time and space; it is inseparable from these circumstances and means different things in different economic settings. According to Gossen, Jevons, and Walras, the amount of "utility" derived from a good could be different in different situations, but according to Menger, the entire basis of value is different as soon as the economic context changes—because the good would then be compared to different other goods. Whatever else one might think of the merits of the psychological approach, it had at least one great attraction, namely, that it allowed the possibility of a mathematical price theory based on marginal utility. With the human psyche as the common denominator of all economic values, it became conceivable to represent the want-satisfaction or utility derived from the consumption of a good as a mathematical function of the quantities consumed; it became conceivable to scale satisfaction and utility into units with which one could perform economic calculation completely disconnected from market prices. It also became conceivable to combine individual utility functions into something like an aggregate utility function: one person's satisfaction and another person's satisfaction can be added into a single quantity representing "their" total satisfaction; and one person's gain added to a different person's loss can be mathematically combined to determine whether there is net gain or loss.56 These considerations probably played a role in prompting Gossen, Jevons, and Walras to choose the psychological approach. They did not begin with observation and then adopt algebraic and geometric techniques as the most adequate tools for representing what they observed. Rather, they began with an agenda—the need to apply mathematics in economics to make it more "scientific"—and were looking for a plausible hypothesis to justify their preferred approach.57 This also explains other fictional stipulations to which they resorted, again, in distinct contrast to Menger's method. In their price theories they avoided one of the great pitfalls of economic theory à la Ricardo, namely, reliance on aggregates. But because they were eager to make political economy a mathematical discipline they fell prey to the other great pitfall, reliance on fictitious ad-hoc postulates. In order to allow for graphical and algebraic representations of utility, demand, and prices, Gossen, Jevons, and Walras assumed that all goods were infinitely divisible. And in order to justify their assumption that the market is in equilibrium, they neglected the existence of error. Just as the classical economists had done before them, the Gossen School analyzed prices as they would be if certain special conditions were fulfilled: they analyzed hypothetical equilibrium prices rather than actual market prices. It is here, then, that we find the great divide between the Austrian and the Gossen Schools. Menger paved the way for dealing with real-world prices. His work made economics more scientific in the true sense of the word—increasing knowledge about real things—while the writings of Gossen, Jevons, and Walras dealt not with matters of fact, but only conjectures. William Jaffé was entirely right when he wrote: Carl Menger clearly stands apart from the other two reputed founders of the modern marginal utility theory…. No one familiar with the primary literature can doubt for a moment that Menger's treatment of the structure of wants in relation to evaluation was more profound and more penetrating not only than that of Walras who evinced no particular interest in such questions, but also than that of Jevons.58 Jaffé went on to identify the root of the greater profundity in Menger's quest for realism, which prevented him from developing "theory" in the sense of a mental construct that is out of touch with concrete experience: Menger kept too close to the real world for either the verbal or symbolic formulation of the theory; and in the real world he saw no sharply defined points of equilibrium, but rather bounded indeterminacies not only in isolated bilateral barter but also in competitive market trading…. With his attention unswervingly fixed on reality, Menger could not, and did not, abstract from the difficulties traders face in any attempt to obtain all the information required for anything like a pinpoint equilibrium determination of market prices to emerge, nor did his approach permit him to abstract from the uncertainties that veil the future, even the near future in the conscious anticipation of which most present transactions take place. Neither did he exclude the existence of non-competing groups, or the omni-presence of monopolistic or monopoloid traders in the market.59 At the end of his career, Menger enlarged his approach to deal with social problems. In this respect too he was a pioneer. The very term "sociology" had recently been invented (by the French positivist Auguste Comte), and there were not yet any recognized professional sociologists around. Carl Menger became one of the first economists-turned-sociologist. Many other Austrian economists such as Schumpeter and Mises would follow in his footsteps. Mises later explained that this extension of interest is merely a natural consequence of the new viewpoint that Menger had developed in his Principles, for the gist of the new approach was an analysis that focused on individual human action and explained all social phenomena as resulting from the interaction of individuals.60 The Breakthrough of the Austrian School At the University of Vienna, Menger faced the determined opposition of Lorenz von Stein, the great champion of French socialism in Germany and Austria.61 Stein rejected Menger's first petition for the Habilitation degree, accepting his application only after Menger had his Principles printed by the Vienna publisher Wilhelm Braumüller at his own expense and sent a proof of the first two chapters to Stein. Having accepted his application, Stein still failed Menger for the degree. After several favorable reviews of his book appeared in German professional journals, Menger applied again and this time he passed. He immediately received offers to teach outside Vienna, but declined because of the heavy financial losses he would sustain if he abandoned his position at the Wiener Zeitung. Instead he stayed as a private lecturer at the University of Vienna. A year later the University of Basel made him a very attractive offer. To keep the gifted young professor, the University of Vienna offered Menger a position as professor extraordinarius62 of political economy and allowed him to keep his position with the Wiener Zeitung. He accepted and stayed in Vienna for the rest of his career, teaching courses on banking, credit, general economics, and public finance.63 In the fall of 1874, he abandoned his position with the Wiener Zeitung to have more time to devote to the research that would lead to the publication of Investigations. In all his academic endeavors, Menger met with the continued resistance of the department, which was run by a group under Stein's leadership. Menger decided to form a new coalition and to wrestle down the old oligarchs. And in 1876 he succeeded, because a decisive change had occurred in his career. The previous fall, he had been approached to become the private tutor of Rudolf von Habsburg, the twenty-two-year-old Dauphin of Austria-Hungary. This commission was to be the apex of Menger's pedagogic activities, but it also brought to light his political views, which he had always been careful not to reveal in any of his published writings. After a careful analysis of Prince Rudolf's notebooks, Erich Streissler concludes that these books "show Menger to have been a classical economic liberal of the purest water … with a much smaller agenda for the state in mind than even Adam Smith."64 Streissler goes on: Menger's Rudolf Lectures are, in fact, probably one of the most extreme statements of the principles of laissez-faire ever put to paper in the academic literature of economics. There is just cause for economic action only in "abnormal" circumstances. Only when "disaster is impending", only where "government support becomes indispensable" should the state step in. Otherwise "government interference" is "always … harmful."65 Menger was smart enough not to present these views on government as his personal opinion. Rather he worked from carefully selected readings to drive his message home. He even chose as his main textbook Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Still, Menger's political views seem to have been familiar enough within the Austrian establishment to cause conflict over the question of his nomination as Rudolf's tutor. In fact it came to a confrontation between the conservative councilors of Rudolf's father Francis Joseph, and the more liberal-minded councilors of his mother Elisabeth. The empress eventually had the last word. Menger took an extended leave of absence from the University for his work with Rudolf, which started in January 1876 and lasted for two years. He became "one of the most trusted teachers of the Crown Prince, trusted by Rudolf himself and by his elders."66 Menger had made his career. His new monarchical Protektion quickly lifted him to the rank of full professor at the University of Vienna, the most prestigious position for an economist in the entire empire. He was now in a position of virtually unrivaled influence on the academic social sciences in Austria-Hungary. Other honors followed almost as a matter of course: he became a lifetime member of the Herrenhaus, the upper chamber of the Austrian parliament, member of the academies of sciences in Vienna and Rome, of the Institut de France, and of the Royal Society in Edinburgh.67 He used this power to settle conflicts within his department at the University of Vienna. And he also seems to have used it to fill Austria's other chairs of political economy with his followers, including Böhm-Bawerk and Wieser.68 Menger saw himself as the founder and leader of a new school of social research, and he strove to raise disciples and to spread them over the land. In a confidential March 1902 letter to the Austrian Ministry of Culture in which he petitioned for early retirement, he claimed that his teaching activities "have generated results that surpass the common results of teaching. This concerns in particular the foundation of the Austrian School of economics." He also points out that many excellent young scholars received their university professor's diploma (the Habilitation) under his auspices and that these scholars had obtained the majority of the chairs of political economy at the Austrian universities. Besides his main followers, Böhm-Bawerk and Wieser, he referred to Emil Sax, Johann von Komorczynski, Robert Meyer, Gustav Gross, Eugen von Philippovich, Victor Mataja, Robert Zuckerkandl, Hermann von Schullern-Schrattenhofen, Richard Reisch, and Richard Schüller. The list of those of his students who had not chosen an academic career is no less impressive. Among them were Moritz Dub, Viktor Grätz, Wilhelm Rosenberg, Rudolf Sieghart, and Ernst Seidler.69 These men would play an important role in Ludwig von Mises's life and career. Menger was successful not only in developing the continental tradition of economic science, but also in establishing a network of like-minded young thinkers within the confines of Austria-Hungary.70 He only failed to get Böhm-Bawerk a chair at the University of Vienna. His favorite disciple applied twice, in 1887 and 1889, but each time the Ministry of Education chose a different candidate. They argued that Böhm-Bawerk represented the same abstract and purely theoretical school as the other chairholder (Menger) and that it was necessary to also have a representative of the new Historical School from Germany.71 Even this did not prove to be a decisive obstacle. In the fall of 1889, Böhm-Bawerk went to Vienna to join the Ministry of Finance and became an adjunct professor at the University of Vienna; in 1905 he obtained a full chair. Hence, in distinct contrast to all other modern (marginalist) schools of economic thought, the Austrian School quickly reached a position of power, protected by intellectual tradition and political patronage. Under the leadership of the next generation, it would obtain a position of unparalleled influence. This article is excerpted from chapter 4 of Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism. 1.Mises, Erinnerungen, p. 19; F.A. Hayek, "Einleitung," Carl Menger, Gesammelte Werke (vol. I, Tübingen: Mohr, 1968), pp. xxxii. 2.After Menger successfully discharged his commission to tutor Crown Prince Rudolf in economics, he obtained the right to accede to Knighthood. Menger did not apply because he preferred his bourgeois status. See Brigitte Hamann, Rudolf: Kronprinz und Rebell (Munich: Piper, 1978), pp. 77, 86. 3.On Menger see in particular F. v. Wieser, "Karl Menger," Anton Bettelheim (ed.), Neue österreichische Biographie: 1815–1918 (Vienna, 1923), vol. I, pp. 84–92, reprinted in idem, Gesammelte Abhandlungen (Tübingen: Mohr, 1929); F.A. Hayek, "Einleitung," pp. vii-xxxvi; Yukihiro Ikeda, Die Entstehungsgeschichte der "Grundsätze" Carl Mengers (St Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae Verlag, 1997). 4.Some ten years later, in a diary entry, he said his present health problems were due to the excessive professional activities of the past, as well as to bad nutrition during some periods of his adolescence, too much time spent in cafés, and too many love affairs. He then decided to spend more time in the countryside and to go out for walks regularly. See Karl Menger's biographical sketch of his father Carl's professional career, "X. Beginn der akademischen Laufbahn," Carl Menger Papers (Duke University, Box 21). 5.Ikeda, Die Entstehungsgeschichte der "Grundsätze" Carl Mengers, pp. 65, 170. 6.This was a fashionable subject of feuilleton novels, a new literary genre at the time. In France, the "king of the feuilleton novel," Eugène Sue had become rich and famous with Le Juif errant (1844–45). The protagonist of his novel symbolized the oppression of the Jewish people throughout the centuries. 7.Kurt Paupié, Handbuch der österreichischen Pressegeschichte 1848–1959 (Vienna: Braumüller, 1960), vol. 1, pp. 119f. Paupié also claims that Menger's own paper, the Wiener Tagblatt, had an official or semi-official character, in particular due to Menger's close ties with Belcredi (see ibid., p. 119). 8.Wieser emphasized: "He entered government service." F. v. Wieser, "Karl Menger," p. 84. See also F.A. Hayek, "Einleitung," p. xii; Kiichiro Yagi, "Carl Menger as Editor: Significance of Journalistic Experience for his Economics and for his Later Life," Revue européenne des sciences sociales XXX (92), 1992; Hamann, Rudolf, p. 78. 9.Wieser, "Karl Menger." 10.Apparently Menger did not abandon his literary interests. In January 1869 he published another novel, Die Bettlerin von St. Marx (The Beggaress of St. Marx) in another Vienna paper, the Allgemeine Volkszeitung. See Ikeda, Die Entstehungsgeschichte der "Grundsätze" Carl Mengers, p. 65, footnote 168. 11.In the parlance of twentieth century analytical philosophy, Menger's "elements" would have been called "primitives" of economic theory. 12.Grundsätze, p. vii. Barry Smith has convincingly argued that Menger applied Aristotelean realism in economic analysis. See Barry Smith, "Austrian Economics and Austrian Philosophy," W. Grassl and B. Smith (eds.), Austrian Economics : Historical and Philosophical Background (London: Croom Helm, 1986), pp. 1–36 ; idem, "Aristotle, Menger, Mises: An Essay in the Metaphysics of Economics," B.J. Caldwell (ed.), Carl Menger and His Legacy in Economics (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990), pp. 263–288. See also Raimondo Cubbedu, The Philosophy of the Austrian School (London: Routledge, 1993), chap. 1, § 1. 13.Menger, Grundsätze; translated as Principles of Economics, p. 191. 14.Menger's February 1884 letter to Léon Walras, as translated and published in Étienne Antonelli, "Léon Walras et Carl Menger à travers leur correspondence," Économie appliquée, vol. VI, nos. 2–3 (1953), pp. 269–287. The passage is quoted from pp. 280f; the translation is mine. 15.William Jaffé emphasizes that "Carl Menger avoided the use of mathematics in his economics not because he did not know any better, but out of principle. When he wrote to Léon Walras on June 28, 1883 that he had been for some time thoroughly acquainted with Walras's writings, he did not disclaim, as did other correspondents, sufficient knowledge of mathematics to follow these writings, which we may be sure he would have done if that had been the case. Instead, Carl Menger declared his objection in principle to the use of mathematics as a method of advancing economic knowledge." Jaffé, "Menger, Jevons and Walras De-Homogenized," Economic Inquiry, vol. XIV (Dec. 1976), p. 521. Robert Hébert reports that Menger owned the journals where the mid-nineteenth century French "econo-engineers" published their pioneering studies in mathematical economics. Menger also owned the books of the major representatives of this school of thought. See R.F. Hébert, "Jevons and Menger Re-Homogenized: Who is the Real 'Odd Man Out'?" American Journal of Economics and Sociology, vol. 57, no. 3 (1998), p. 329. 16.Menger’s February 1884 letter to Léon Walras, p. 282. 17.Wilhelm Roscher, Geschichte der National-Oekonomik in Deutschland (1st ed., Munich: Oldenbourg, 1874), pp. 1014f. 18.See for example Gustav Schmoller, "Volkswirtschaft, Volkswirtschaftslehre und -methode," Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften (3rd ed., Jena: Fischer, 1911), vol. VIII, p. 426, where Schmoller speaks of a battle of his school against Ricardo's one-sidedness. 19.Yet by the same token Say also paved the way to displacing the continental tradition of economic thought that could be traced back to the Spanish late-Scholastics—a tradition that was still alive and vigorous in the Catholic countries of Europe. See below. 20.M.N. Rothbard, Classical Economics, chap. 1. 21.On scholastic economics and the economics of the late-scholastic School of Salamanca in particular, see Joseph A. Schumpeter, A History of Economic Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954); Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson, The School of Salamanca: Readings in Spanish Monetary Theory, 1544–1605 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952); Raymond de Roover, Business, Banking, and Economic Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974); Emil Kauder, A History of Marginal Utility Theory (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1965); Murray N. Rothbard, Economic Thought before Adam Smith (Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1995); Jesús Huerta de Soto, "New Light on the Prehistory of the Theory of Banking and the School of Salamanca," Review of Austrian Economics, vol. 9, no. 2 (1996), pp. 59–81. 22.Shelagh Eltis and Walter Eltis, "The Life and Contribution to Economics of the Abbé de Condillac," in Etienne Bonnot, Abbé de Condillac, Commerce and Government (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1997). 23.Menger quoted Condillac more than any foreign authority other than Adam Smith, and in contrast to Smith, he quoted him only favorably. 24.See in particular Etienne de Condillac, Essai sur l'origine des connaissances humaines (1746), Traité des sensations (1754), Le commerce et le gouvernement (1776). These works are collected in his Œuvres complètes (Paris: Tourneux, Lecointe et Durey, 1822), vols. 1, 3 et 4. 25.In 1807, Gottlieb Hufeland called the subjectivist theory the "traditional view" and recommended never to deviate from it. See Gottlieb Hufeland, Neue Grundlegung der Staatswirthschaftskunst (Giessen and Wetzlar: Tasche & Müller, 1807), p. 18. 26.See in particular Erich Streissler, "The Influence of German Economics on the Work of Carl Menger and Marshall," B.J. Caldwell, ed., Carl Menger and His Legacy in Economics (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990); idem, "Carl Menger, der deutsche Nationalökonom," B.P. Priddat (ed.), Wert, Meinung, Bedeutung (Marburg: Metropolis, 1997), pp. 33–88; Yukihiro Ikeda, Die Entstehungsgeschichte der "Grundsätze" Carl Mengers. 27.Erich Streissler points out that Alfred Marshall Principles (1891) had the exact structure of a typical German textbook. See Streissler, "the Influence of German economists on the work of Menger and Marshall," B.J. Caldwell (ed.), Carl Menger and his legacy in economics (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990), p. 51. 28.William M. Johnston, Vienna, Vienna—The Golden Age, 1815–1914 (Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori, 1981), p. 15. 29.This point of view was not limited to intellectuals working in "ideological" fields such as history, political economy, or philosophy. In a public lecture given on August 3, 1870, Emil du Bois-Reymond, the rector of the Frederick-William University of Berlin and a pioneer of electro-physiology, proclaimed that his university was the "intellectual bodyguard of the House of Hohenzollern." See Bois-Reymond, Über den deutschen Krieg (Berlin: Hirschwald, 1870). 30.Erich Streissler, "The Influence of German Economics on the Work of Carl Menger and Marshall." Through this work, Streissler has convincingly corrected the heretofore prevailing notion that the Younger Historical School was somehow more deeply rooted in the German tradition of economic science than Carl Menger. As Streissler stated, the real revolutionary was Gustav Schmoller, not Menger. 31.Schmoller was a professor in Halle from 1864 to 1872. Being one of the first beneficiaries of the Prussian-German victory over France in the Franco-Prussian War, he moved to the University of Strasbourg (1872–1882), before finally receiving a chair at the University of Berlin (1882–1913). 32.Gustav Schmoller, "Einladung zur Eisenacher Versammlung von 1872," printed in Franz Boese, Geschichte des Vereins für Sozialpolitik, 1872–1932 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1939), p. 241. 33.The smear term "Kathedersozialisten" was coined by Heinrich Bernard Oppenheim in his book Der Katheder-Sozialismus (Berlin: Oppenheim, 1872). See Raico, Die Partei der Freiheit, p. 200. The only Austrian participant in the initial 1872 meeting was one Dr. Friedmann (probably Otto Bernhard Friedmann), a journalist from Vienna. 34.On the history of the Verein see Boese, Geschichte des Vereins für Sozialpolitik, 1872–1932; Dieter Lindenlaub, Richtungskämpfe im Verein für Sozialpolitik: Wissenschaft und Sozialpolitik im Kaiserreich vornehmlich vom Begin des "Neuen Kurses" bis zum Ausbruch des ersten Weltkrieges (1890–1914) (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1967); Irmela Gorges, Sozialforschung in Deutschland. Gesellschaftliche Einflüsse auf Themen und Methodenwahl des Vereins für Socialpolitik, der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie und des Kölner Forschungsinstituts für Sozialwissenschaften (2 vols, Frankfurt am Main: Anton Hain, 1986). 35.Raico, Partei der Freiheit, p. 188. 36.Many years later, Mises characterized their attitude in the following words: "It is the mentality of officialdom—which, according to Brentano, was 'the only sounding board of the Association for Social Policy'—that considers as constructive and positive only that ideology which calls for the greatest number of offices and officials. And he who seeks to reduce the number of state agents is decried as a 'negative thinker' or an 'enemy of the state'." (A Critique of Interventionism, New York: Arlington House, 1977, pp. 82f) See also Mises, The Historical Setting of the Austrian School of Economics (New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1969), p. 31. On the history of the Bismarckian welfare state, and of its predecessor under Frederick II, see Gerd Habermann, Der Wohlfahrtsstaat: Die Geschichte eines Irrwegs (2nd ed., Frankfurt: Ullstein, 1997). 37.Gustav Schmoller, "Eröffnungsrede zum 25jährigen Bestehen des Vereins auf der Kölner Tagung von 1897," printed in Franz Boese, Geschichte des Vereins für Sozialpolitik, 1872–1932, pp. 253ff, in part. 262f. 38.Ibid., pp. 260f. 39.In the early years, the most vociferous opposition to the Verein's agenda came from non-members such as Heinrich Oppenheim and Julius Wolf. See Raico, Partei der Freiheit, pp. 200ff. Pohle and Voigt published their influential and devastating critiques of the Verein only after they left it in 1905. 40.See for example Gustav Schmoller, "Die Gerechtigkeit in der Volkswirtschaft," Schmollers Jahrbuch, vol. 5 (1881), pp. 19–54; idem, Zur Social- und Gewerbepolitik der Gegenwart (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1890); idem, Grundriss der allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1900). 41.See his important February 1884 letter to Léon Walras, as translated and published in Antonelli, "Léon Walras et Carl Menger à travers leur correspondence," Économie appliquée, vol. VI, nos. 2–3 (1953), pp. 269–287. The letter is quoted on pp. 284f. The passage referred to is on p. 283. 42.Carl Menger, Untersuchungen zur Methode der Sozialwissenschaften und der politischen Oekonomie im besonderen (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1883); translated as Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences and of Political Economy in Particular (New York: New York University Press, 1985). 43.Schmoller, "Zur Methodologie der Staats und Sozial-Wissenschaften," Schmoller's Jahrbuch, new series, vol. VII, no. 3, pp. 239ff. See also the review by Leser in Conrad's Jahrbücher, new series, vol. VII, pp. 273ff. 44.See the 1886 edition of Roscher's Grundlagen, quoted from Milford, "Hufeland als Vorläufer von Menger und Hayek," pp. 99f. In 1871, Menger had dedicated his Grundsätze to Roscher. 45.As far as Menger's contributions to the debate are concerned, see Carl Menger, Die Irrthümer des Historismus in der deutschen Nationalökonomie (Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1884); idem "Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie," Zeitschrift für das Privat- und öffentliche Recht der Gegenwart XIV (1887); idem, "Grundzüge einer Klassifikation der Wirtschaftswissenschaften," Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, new series, vol. XIX (1889). These papers have been reprinted in Carl Menger, Gesammelte Werke, edited by F.A. Hayek (2nd ed., Tübingen: Mohr, 1970), vol. III. 46.The model of opposition between libertarian-minded theorists and statist historians is not a complete reflection of the state of affairs. There were in fact market-friendly historicists such as Lujo Brentano, as well as theorists with strong statist inclinations such as Adolf Wagner, or even Wieser. 47.Richard Schüller, Die klassische Nationalökonomie und ihre Gegner (Berlin: Heymanns, 1895). Hildebrand had succeeded Lorenz von Stein, but stayed only one year in Vienna. 48.For an introduction to nineteenth century German thought on the nature of science, see the collection of original papers by Humboldt, Gauss, Chamisso, Virchow, Helmholtz, Ranke, Burckhardt, and many others in Wolfgang Schirmacher (ed.), German Essays on Science in the 19th Century (New York: Continuum, 1996). 49.Accounts of the differences between these authors can be found in J.R. Hicks, "Léon Walras," Econometrica (October 1934), p. 338; Joseph A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954), p. 918; William Jaffé, "Menger, Jevons and Walras De-Homogenized," Economic Inquiry, vol. XIV (Dec. 1976), pp. 511ff; Sandra J. Peart, "Jevons and Menger re-Homogenized?" American Journal of Economics and Sociology, vol. 57, no. 3 (1998), pp. 307ff. According to a widespread view, Walras eclipsed Menger and Jevons because he had pioneered general-equilibrium theory and thereby demonstrated the interdependency of all economic phenomena. This view is peculiar because this general interdependency is in fact a presupposition of any sort of economic analysis. It is in fact merely another way of saying that there is scarcity. Mark Blaug corrected this erroneous view, stressing that Menger too analyzed economic phenomena in their mutual interdependence. See Blaug, "Comment" [on O'Brien's "Lionel Robbins and the Austrian Connection"], B.J. Caldwell, ed., Carl Menger and His Legacy in Economics (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990), p. 186. 50.Jaffé, "Menger, Jevons and Walras De-Homogenized," pp. 513ff, 518. A French predecessor was Jules Dupuit, who published two articles on marginal value in the late 1840s. See Robert Ekelund and Robert Hébert, Secret Origins of Modern Microeconomics: Dupuit and the Engineers (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1999); and L'oeuvre multiple de Jules Dupuit (1804–1866): Calcul d'ingénieur, analyse économique et pensée sociale (Angers: Presses de l'Université d'Angers, 2002). 51.Hermann Heinrich Gossen, Entwickelung der Gesetze des menschlichen Verkehrs und der daraus fliessenden Regeln für menschliches Handeln (Braunschweig: Vieweg & Sohn, 1854). 52.See the preface of the 1879 second edition of his Principles of Economics, p. il. 53.L. Walras, "Un économiste inconnu: Hermann-Henri Gossen." Journal des Économistes (April and May 1885). This is the same Walras who in his correspondence with Menger apologized that his German was not good enough to digest Grundsätze. 54.See Walras's February 2, 1887 letter to Menger, as translated and published in Antonelli, "Léon Walras et Carl Menger à travers leur correspondence," pp. 269–287. The letter is quoted on pp. 285f. See also the exchange of letters between Jevons and Walras published in the Journal des Économistes (June 1874). In a January 27, 1887 letter to Léon Walras, Menger had emphasized that there was only a limited analogy between his approach and Gossen's, but that there was no conformity in the "decisive questions." See Antonelli, "Léon Walras et Carl Menger à travers leur correspondence," pp. 269–287. The letter is quoted on pp. 284f. 55.Jaffé ("Menger, Jevons and Walras De-Homogenized," pp. 515f) stresses that Walras initially did not associate diminishing marginal utility with quantities consumed, but with quantities possessed. It is true that Walras was more cautious than Gossen and Jevons in speculating on the psychological underpinnings of his price theory, even though in his Eléments d'économie politique he eventually did bring in Gossen-style psychological analysis. But, as we shall see, the decisive consideration for our purposes is that value is for Walras (just as for Gossen and Jevons) a two-sided relationship, involving an acting person and one other object; whereas Menger's analysis of value features at least three elements: acting person and two things that are ranked from the point of view of the agent. 56.Gossen, Entwickelung der Gesetze des menschlichen Verkehrs etc., pp. 80ff. 57.This fact is crucial to understanding the history of twentieth-century economic thought. Gossen was already an enthusiastic mathematician and only studied law under the severe pressure of his father; see F.A. Hayek, "Einleitung," introduction to H.H. Gossen, Entwicklung der Gesetze des menschlichen Verkehrs etc. (3rd ed., Berlin: Prager, 1927), pp. xf. All of his followers featured the same mindset. As Mark Blaug points out (Great Economists before Keynes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), Jevons first studied chemistry and biology and then turned his attention to economics. His "inspiration was Bentham's 'felicific calculus' of pleasure and pain, supplemented by the works of Dionysius Lardner … and Fleeming Jenkins …, two British engineer-economists of the 1860s" (ibid., p. 100). Walras pursued formal studies in letters, science, and engineering. From his father, the economist Auguste Walras, he adopted the conviction that some concept of utility maximization is the fundamental element of economic science. Walras's great follower Vilfredo Pareto was an engineer and turned to economics only at the age of 42. Similarly, Knut Wicksell's and Irving Fisher's first university degrees were in mathematics. Gustav Cassel, who according to Blaug (ibid., pp. 41ff) had written the most widely read textbook of the interwar period, was a Ph.D. in mathematics, then became a schoolmaster and then turned to economics, becoming the greatest popularizer of general-equilibrium economics à la Walras. In contrast, the predominant formative influence on Austrian economists did not come in the form of mathematical training, but through legal studies. Until the interwar period, all Austrian economists had to obtain a first degree in law before they could turn their research to economic problems. As a consequence, the Vienna economists distinguished themselves by a great capacity to think conceptually and, most importantly, by their eagerness to relate all of their concepts to the observed real world. Their training in law effectively counterbalanced the inclination some of them felt for the natural sciences (for example, Böhm-Bawerk had in his youth a great interest in theoretical physics; see Schumpeter, "Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk," Neue Österreichische Biographie (Vienna, 1925), vol. II, p. 65). 58.Jaffé, "Menger, Jevons and Walras De-Homogenized," p. 519. 59.Jaffé, "Menger, Jevons and Walras De-Homogenized," p. 520. 60.Mises, Money, Method, and Market Process, edited by R. Ebeling (Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute, 1990). 61.See Karl Menger's biographical sketch of his father Carl's professional career, "X. Beginn der akademischen Laufbahn," Carl Menger Papers (Duke University, Box 21). 62.Roughly speaking, this rank corresponded to a present-day associate professor in the United States. 63.There must have been some Protektion involved. Here it should be remembered that Menger's journalistic activities had early on brought him in touch with established political forces. These connections probably played in his favor when he applied for the chair at the University of Vienna. 64.Erich Streissler, "Menger's treatment of economics in the Rudolf lectures," E.W. Streissler, M. Streissler (eds), Carl Menger's Lectures to Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria (Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1994), pp. 4, 14. 65.Ibid., p. 17. On Menger's liberalism see also Israel Kirzner, "Menger, Classical Liberalism, and the Austrian School of Economics," B.J. Caldwell (ed.), Carl Menger and His Legacy in Economics, pp. 93–106; Kiichiro Yagi, "Carl Menger as Editor: Significance of Journalistic Experience for his Economics and for his Later Life," Revue européenne des sciences sociales, vol. 30, no. 92 (1992); idem, "Carl Menger and Historical Aspects of Liberalism in Austria," essay presented at a symposium on Carl Menger and the Historical Aspects of Liberalism (Center for Historical Social Science Literature, Hitotsubashi University, December 18–19, 2004). 66.Ibid. 67.Kurt Rothschild, "Carl Menger," Walter Pollack (ed.), Tausend Jahre Österreich (Vienna: Verlag Jugend und Volk, 1974), vol. 3, pp. 67ff. 68.Klaus H. Hennings, The Austrian Theory of Value and Capital (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 10f., 24 (13). Ludwig von Mises's characterization of Menger's and Böhm-Bawerk's attitude gives a somewhat misleading picture of the times. In Erinnerungen (p. 22), Mises stresses that these men were not interested in promoting their cause through their personal power (see also Mises, Historical Setting of the Austrian School of Economics, p. 39). But that does not mean that they did not have considerable power, nor that they never made any use of it. 69.Hayek, “Einleitung,” pp. xxxiiif. 70.It appears that the main reason why Menger retired at the comparatively young age of sixty-two was that he had caused a scandal through an affair with his housemaid. The affair became public because of the birth of Karl, whom Carl Menger acknowledged as his son. Karl cost Menger his career, and he thereby also changed the history of the Austrian School of economics, which under Carl's guidance certainly would have taken a different course than it did under his successor, Friedrich von Wieser. But Karl's birth also led to a rapprochement between the Austrian School and the mainstream through a more direct route: Karl Menger himself would eventually become a famous mathematical economist. 71.Shigeki Tomo, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk (Marburg: Metropolis, 1994), pp. 157–62. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------