In political economy. Originated in the 80s. 19th century in Austria (K. Menger, E. Boehm Bawerk, F. Wieser, etc.). In the 20s 20th century its successor was the young Austrian school (L. Mises, F. Hayek, G. Haberler, etc.). The teachings of the Austrian school are based on... ... Modern encyclopedia

Austrian school- in political economy. Originated in the 80s. 19th century in Austria (K. Menger, E. Boehm Bawerk, F. Wieser, etc.). In the 20s 20th century its successor was the “young Austrian school” (L. Mises, F. Hayek, G. Haberler, etc.). The teachings of the Austrian school are based on... ... Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

In political economy. Originated in the 80s. XIX century in Austria (K. Menger, E. Böhm Bawerk, F. Wieser, etc.). In the 20s 20th century its successor was the “young Austrian school” (L. Mises, F. Hayek, G. Haberler, etc.). The main element of the theory of the Austrian school... encyclopedic Dictionary

- (sometimes called Viennese) a subjective psychological direction in bourgeois political economy. Originated in Austria in the 80s. 19th century as a reaction to the appearance of the 1st volume of “Capital” by K. Marx, the spread of Marxist... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

AUSTRIAN SCHOOL- (MATHEMATICAL) - brought together economists and teachers from Austrian universities. Its most prominent representatives were K. Menger, E. von Böhm Bawerk, F. Wieser (see section 1.1). The Austrian school, which formed in the 1870s, began with... ... Economics from A to Z: Thematic Guide

AUSTRIAN SCHOOL- A group of early empirical psychologists led by theologian, philosopher and psychologist Franz Brentano. The focus was on acts or processes of consciousness rather than on content, as with Wundt's followers. Later this direction... ... Explanatory dictionary of psychology

Austrian school- AUSTRIAN SCHOOL A group of academic economists at the University of Vienna, who at the end of the 19th century. developed a new direction in economic theory, the theory of marginalism. The founder of theoretical analysis was Professor Carl Menger, who in his... ... Dictionary-reference book on economics

AUSTRIAN SCHOOL in political economy. Originated in the 80s. 19th century in Austria (K. Menger, E. Boehm Bawerk, F. Wieser, etc.). In the 20s 20th century its successor was the young Austrian school (L. Mises, F. Hayek, G. Haberler, etc.). The main element of the theory... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Austrian School of Economics- Refusal of the labor theory of value The theoretical core of the classical political economy of A. Smith and D. Ricardo lies in the concept of value, according to which the value of a product depends on the amount of socially necessary labor spent on it... ... Western philosophy from its origins to the present day

Austrian school- (Gratz school) a group of researchers X. Ehrenfels, S. Vitasek, V. Benussi and others who worked mainly at the University of Graz since the 80s. XIX century to the 10s XX century under the guidance of psychologist and philosopher A. Meinong. In production and development... ... Great psychological encyclopedia

Books

• History of money circulation and banking in the United States: from the colonial period to World War II. Series: The Austrian School / A History of Money and Banking in the United States, Murray Rothbard / Murray N. Rothbard. The author examines periods of inflation, banking panics and collapses of monetary systems in America from colonial times to the mid-20th century, showing that the cause of almost all major economic...
• Power and the market: state and economy. Series: The Austrian School, Rothbard M.. 418 pp. The book is a comprehensive analysis of all types of government intervention in the economy. The author explores the 86 most common types of government functions.…

Austrian school of marginalism

For non-specialists, it should be explained that economic knowledge until the end of the 19th century constituted one direction, today called classical political economy, which, with the advent of Marxist political economy, began to be divided (in general) into TWO currents. The concept of class struggle and the forecast of the finitude of capitalism, proposed by Karl Marx, did not suit many other political economists, but the final watershed was the attitude towards the theory of labor value. The success of Karl Marx stimulated many other economists to write their “Anti-Capitals” (See A. Marshall), and the general anti-Marxist the current formed several different economic schools, however, which, due to a common platform and omnivorousness, formed modern economic doctrine, called Neoclassical economic theory.

20.05.2017 Material Austrian School from the free encyclopedia

Austrian school(Also Viennese school, psychological school) - a theoretical direction of economic science within the framework of marginalism, emphasizing the role of the self-organizing force of the market price mechanism. The basis of this approach is the assertion that the complexity of human behavior and the constantly changing nature of markets makes mathematical modeling in economics extremely difficult (if not impossible). In this situation, the principles of a free economy (Laissez-faire), economic liberalism and libertarianism become the main ones in the field of economic policy. Followers of the Austrian school advocate the protection of freedom of contracts concluded by market participants (economic agents) and non-interference in transactions (especially from the state).

Austrian School of Economics Doctrine

Features of the Austrian school

• refusal to use mathematical research methods;
• subjectivity as a characteristic feature of almost all representatives of the school;
• emphasis on studying the psychological characteristics of consumer behavior;
• emphasis on capital structure and time variability of the latter when studying macroeconomic problems.

Austrian school briefly

Economists of the Austrian school adhere to methodological individualism, which they describe as the analysis of human activity from the point of view of individual people. Representatives of the Austrian school argue that the only way to build a meaningful economic theory is to logically derive it from the basic principles of human activity, calling such a method praxeological. Moreover, although natural experiments are often used by followers of the economic mainstream, " Austrians" indicate that experimental testing of economic models is almost impossible, since the normal economic activity of people - the subject of economic research - cannot be reproduced in artificial conditions.

Austrian School of Economics definitely refers to the neoclassical bourgeois stream of economic knowledge that emerged from the marginalist revolution of the 1970s associated with the "breakthrough" in the theory of value. That's why Austrian school also known as - Austrian school of marginal utility or Austrian school of marginalism. It was marginalism that laid the foundation new basics Western economic theory, on which it has been developing ever since. Although Austrian school is isolated from the mainstream of Western economic knowledge, but stands on the same foundations, the main one of which is the assumption taken as an axiom that economic entities have “reasonableness,” which means self-interest. As if every person has knowledge of the subjective value of each thing and initiates any exchange or even production, only because of the desire to obtain the maximum benefit. , like the entire neoclassical direction of economic thought, reduces all economic relations to exchange. It's obvious that Austrian School of Economics and all neoclassical economics the question of the finitude of capitalism and the class struggle were left outside the scope of research, which provided them with support from capitalist countries. Actually, the Western mainstream of economic knowledge considered and continues to consider today - the Austrian school for blurring the scientific foundations of marginalism and denying the use of mathematical apparatus in analysis - side current, especially since its isolation is due to some of its provisions that bring it closer to Marxism. Keyesianism, as a new wave of enthusiasm in Western neoclassical economic thought in the 30s of the 20th century, threw the Austrian school to the periphery for several decades. Only the cooling towards Keyesianism at the end of the 70s allowed the Austrian school to reassert itself, as interest in the theory and practice of the counter grew. Neoclassical market theory again drew attention to abstract models based more on the psychology of individual behavior, where the Austrian school already had significant developments.

The main representatives of the Austrian school

• ]first generation - Carl Menger (1840−1921) ( founder of the Austrian school), Theodor Herzka (1845-1924), etc.
• second generation - Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk (1851−1914), Friedrich von Wieser (1851−1926), Eugen von Philippovich von Philippsberg (1858−1917), Emil Sachs (1845−1927);
• third generation - Ludwig von Mises (1881−1973), Karl Schlesinger (1889−1938), H. Mayer (1879−1955), Richard von Striegl (1891−1942), Leo Illy (nee Sehnfeld) (1888−1952) , Benjamin Anderson (1886−1949), Frank Fetter (1863−1949);
• fourth generation - Friedrich von Hayek (1899−1992), Oscar Morgenstern (1902−1977), Fritz Machlup (1902−1983), Paul Rosenstein-Rodan (1902−1985), Gottfried von Haberler (1900−1995), Henry Hazlitt ( 1894−1993), Friedrich Lutz (1901−1975), Felix Kaufmann (1895−1949);
• fifth generation - Murray Rothbard (1926−1995), Israel Kirzner (born 1930), Ludwig Lachmann (1906−1990), George Shackle (G.L.S. Shackle) (1903−1992);
• sixth generation - Hans-Hermann Hoppe (born 1949), Jörg Guido Hülsmann (born 1966), Jesus Huerta de Soto (born 1956), Peter Boettke (born 1960), Chris Coyne, Steven Horwitz, born 1964, Peter T. Leeson, Frederic Sautet, Roger Garrison (born 1944), etc.

To some extent, the famous economists Joseph Schumpeter (1883−1950), John Bates Clark (1847−1938) and Max Otte (born 1964) are also related in their views, but do not completely belong to the scientists of the Austrian school.

Representatives of the school in the CIS

In the Russian Empire, one can note Orzhentsky Roman Mikhailovich.

In Russian federation:

• Boris Lvin
• Victor Agroskin
• Yuri Antonovich
• Valery Kizilov
• Alexander Kuryaev
• Anatoly Levenchuk
• Vadim Novikov
• Grigory Sapov
• Pavel Valerievich Usanov.

In Belarus - Kovalev Alexander, Yaroslav Romanchuk.

History of the development of the Austrian school

Austrian school takes its name from the origins of its founders and early adherents, including Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk and Ludwig von Mises. Notable 20th-century economists attributed to the Austrian School also include Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, and Nobel laureate Friedrich von Hayek.

Austrian school of marginal utility

At the end of the 19th century, Karl Marx became an undisputed authority among economists. However, the success of Karl Marx led not only to the emergence of a wave of imitators, BUT also to the emergence of numerous critical theories, the authors of which were primarily not satisfied with the theory of class struggle, which followed from the principle of capitalism discovered by Marx - in the form of the capitalist’s appropriation of surplus value. It was necessary to dissociate from Marx at the level of philosophical foundations, therefore at the end of the 19th century, in parallel with the establishment of Marxism, a revolution of marginalists took place, who developed a theory of value based on the rarity and usefulness of consumer goods in the sphere of exchange for an individual. Marginalists reduced all economic relations to the exchange of things, in which each individual pursues the maximum benefit - the maximum satisfaction of his needs.

To give this approach to the concept of value the appearance of “scientific” - the majorists had to “drag” into such as “the subjective attitude of an individual person to a thing” (attributing to people from birth knowledge about the degree of usefulness of all goods), which was actually completely absurd, but marginalists, through the invented concept of rationality, managed to form a completely logical theory of marginal utility. Representatives of the Austrian school of marginalism suggested the existence of objective rationality in human behavior, supposedly inherent to the entire human race in the sense of - self-interest is a natural trait of any person. They took it as an axiom that each person exchanges things, driven by a subjective desire for profitability, and even pursues this profitability as a goal when organizing production. Since subjectivism does not correlate well with reality, economic relations are considered in abstract models with not very defined boundaries. At the same time, the “Austrians” have one answer to criticism about the artificiality of their models - in reality, everything is distorted by the influence.

Today, marginalists for the most part have entered into neoclassical economic theory, which is a vague cloud of concepts under the general name (Economics) - a mix of countless conclusions based on statistics.

Economics or otherwise - neoclassicism, as the main stream of Western economic knowledge, is a set of private concepts based on statistics, often at the level economics of an individual enterprise. The purpose of economics is to study individual behavior in the process of purchasing goods and developing recommendations for effective business. An innumerable number of diverse articles have been written in neoclassical theory on the problems of microeconomics.

But macroeconomics contains completely contradictory concepts. The question of the “finitude of capitalism” is not raised at all in neoclassics, and the phrase “collapse of capitalism” is generally prohibited in economics.

Austrian school theory

At the beginning of the 20th century, as a result of the following Keynesian revolution in Western economics representatives of the Austrian school of marginalism were relegated to the background for several decades. However, in the early 70s, as Keynesianism weakened, interest in micro economic analysis of the behavior and preferences of an individual buyer when purchasing goods, which pulled the Austrian school out of oblivion, since the “Austrians” consider and solve all economic problems at the micro level - of the enterprise and the individual.

The well-forgotten methodological individualism of the Austrian school, based on the exaggeration of the importance of the knowledge of an individual as a participant in the exchange, suddenly became in demand in Western economics. That's why Austrian school resurfaced as a separate movement, and its representatives were retroactively awarded the Nobel Prize.

Another difference between the Austrian school and the economic mainstream is denial of mathematical apparatus what was once thought a sign of backwardness this direction, and today allows it to maintain integrity and cover a wider range of phenomena, especially in microeconomics. One more the dignity of the Austrian school is the creation within its framework of a consistent end-to-end history of all humanity.

Oleg Grigoriev and the Austrian school

He was familiar with the Austrian school, since he worked in the USSR State Planning Committee. At that time, state planning theorists only declared their commitment to Marxist political economy, while on practice Soviet state planners were guided the provisions of the Austrian school. Initially, he considered his theory, named in the bosom of neoclassical economic theory, which in Russia replaced political economy. But it turned out that neoconomics is a completely separate science. It is a research program whose purpose is to study the history of the economy that led humanity to today's economic crisis.

At the same time, it is constructed as a historical theory, open to refutation, for which the main provisions of Marxist political economy and neoclassical economic theory are specifically considered. Austrian school of marginalism still cannot claim to be a full-fledged economic theory, although due to the breadth of its postulates like Marxism managed to explain the end-to-end history of humanity.

We need to understand the reason why Austrian school continues to be popular - especially among ordinary people, and with the level of scientists falling to the same level (it’s just that the crisis has shown the inconsistency of all orthodox economic science). The fact is that Austrian school - normative theory- it represents theory about HOW IT SHOULD BE, therefore, she is always in an advantageous “critic position” - and other theories and actions of real economic authorities. The very same Austrian school does not have any positive real proposals for a way out of the crisis, but representatives of the Austrian school as scientific populists are always ready to declare - what they know " HOW TO" Fortunately, no one has been using the services of the Austrian school for a long time, but it has already become commonplace that representatives of the Austrian school constantly make loud statements (usually in hindsight) about their supposedly fulfilled predictions. Most of the economic sensations and predictions (for example, about the return of gold to the place of money) are just “stuffing” from scientists from the Austrian school.

see also

• Avtonomov V.S. The Austrian school and its representatives // Economic literature. (Russian) - 08/24/2009.
• Klein P. Introduction // Hayek F. The fate of liberalism in the 20th century. - M.: IRISEN, Thought; Chelyabinsk: Socium, 2009. - P. 11. This collection is a translation of volume IV from the Collected Works of Hayek “The Fortunes of Liberalism: Essays on Austrian Economics and the Ideal of Freedom” (edited by Peter G. Klein. - Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992. - 287 p.).
• Hayek F. Joseph Schumpeter (1883−1950) // Hayek F. Op. op., p. 195. Just below, F. Hayek points out that the first [German-language] book was written in the Mengerian tradition, but J. Schumpeter’s views later changed dramatically (“were discarded”) and the book was never translated into English.
• Hayek F. John Bates Clark (1847−1938) // Hayek F. Op.cit., p. 51.
• Boris Lvin - Moscow Libertarium
• Boris Levin's blog
• Victor Agroskin - Moscow Libertarium
• Blog of Victor Agroskin
• Antonovich Yuri Nikolaevich. Southern Federal University, Department of Innovation and International Management.
• Kizilov Valery Valerievich: National Research University Higher School of Economics
• Blog of Valery Kizilov
• Yuri Kuznetsov
• Yuri Kuznetsov's blog
• Kuryaev Alexander Viktorovich. Editor-in-chief of the publishing house Sotsium
• Blog of Alexander Kuryaev
• Levenchuk Anatoly - Moscow Libertarium
• Blog of Anatoly Levenchuk
• Novikov Vadim Vitalievich - Institute of Economic Policy named after. E. T. Gaidar
• Vadim Novikov's blog
• Bureau of Grigory Sapov
• Blog of Grigory Sapov
• Usanov Pavel Valerievich - Higher School of Economics National Research University - St. Petersburg
• SpringerLink - The Review of Austrian Economics
• Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics
• Prague Conference on Political Economy
• Bukharin N.I. Preface // Political economy of the rentier. - Orbit, 1988. - 192

Literature

• The main works of the school's representatives[edit | edit wiki text]
• K. Menger. Foundations of political economy. In the book: The Austrian school in political economy: K. Menger, E. Böhm-Bawerk, F. Wieser: Trans. with him. / Preface, commentary, comp. V. S. Avtonomova. − M.: Economics, 1992. − (Economic heritage.) − ISBN 5-282-01471-8.
• Wieser F. Theory of social economy (selected chapter) - In the book: Austrian school in political economy: K. Menger, E. Böhm-Bawerk, F. Wieser: Trans. with him. / Preface, commentary, comp. V. S. Avtonomova. − M.: Economics, 1992. − (Economic heritage.) − ISBN 5-282-01471-8.
• Mises L. Liberalism in the classical tradition. − M.: Socium; Economics, 2001. − 239 p.
• Mises L. Socialism. − M.: Catallaxy, 1994.
• Mises L. Theory and history: Interpretation of socio-economic evolution. − M.: UNITY-DANA, 2001. − 295 p.
• Mises L. Human activity: Treatise on economic theory / 2nd revision. ed. - Chelyabinsk: Sotsium, 2005. − 878 pp. − ISBN 5-901901-29-0.
• Hayek F. Individualism and economic order. − M.: Izograph, 2000. − 256 p.

Works about the Austrian school

• Austrian school / Alter L. B. // A - Engob. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1969. - (Great Soviet Encyclopedia: [in 30 volumes] / chief editor A. M. Prokhorov; 1969-1978, vol. 1).
• Avtonomov V.S. The Austrian school and its representatives. − In the book: The Austrian school in political economy: K. Menger, E. Böhm-Bawerk, F. Wieser: Trans. with him. / Preface, commentary, comp. V. S. Avtonomova. − M.: Economics, 1992. − (Economic heritage.) − ISBN 5-282-01471-8.
• Antonovich Yu.N. Austrian theory of capital and capital goods // Post-crisis world: globalization, multipolarity, modernization, institutions: materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference (Rostov-on-Don, May 20-22, 2010): in 3 volumes. T.1/ under ed. A.Yu.Arkhipova, Yu.M.Osipova, V.A.Aleshina, V.N.Ovchinnikova. - Moscow: University Book, 2010. – P.87-98. - ISBN 978-5-9502-0573-6.
• Blaug M. Austrian theory of capital and interest // Economic thought in retrospect = Economic Theory in Retrospect. - M.: Delo, 1994. - P. 461-526. - XVII, 627 p. - ISBN 5-86461-151-4.
• Blumin I. G. The Austrian School // Criticism of bourgeois political economy: In 3 volumes. - M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1962. - T. I. Subjective school in bourgeois political economy. - P. 70-151. - VIII, 872 p. - 3,200 copies.
• Bukharin N. Political economy of the rentier: the theory of value and profit of the Austrian school
• Callahan Jean Economics for ordinary people: Foundations of the Austrian economic school. - Chelyabinsk: Society, 2006.
• Tugan-Baranovsky M.I. Austrian school // Essays on the modern history of political economy: (Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, Sismondi, historical school, Katheder-socialists, Austrian school, Owen, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Proudhon, Rodbertus, Marx ). - SPb.: Publishing house. magazine "God's World", 1903. - pp. 206-224. - X, 434 p.
• Huerta de Soto H. Austrian Economic School: Market and Entrepreneurial Creativity. - Chelyabinsk: Sotsium, 2007. − 202 p. − (Series “Austrian School.” Issue 1). − ISBN 978-5-901901-69-4.

When determining the Utility and Benefit characteristics, Menger receives two items in one shell. It seems to me more familiar and consistent with the meaning of the perception of these words is their meaning:
A benefit is an object or relationship that is a carrier of utility as a property to satisfy human needs, both directly and through the processes of natural development, social and economic interaction. From this it is clear that not all goods can come into direct and immediate contact with an individual, but at the same time in their meaning they act as a good.

The Law of Cause and Effect is usually considered in sequence from cause to effect, and life shows that the effect is a search for the cause. If we take into account that human life itself is created and built from the micro level and this happens to a certain extent spontaneously, then not everything will look clearly defined. A mass of causes can be established only when there is some event, action, result, and the name of the cause becomes a formalized explanation of the effect. It will always be there. If we take any event or state as an Effect, then everything that preceded it - a mass of conditions, circumstances and states, and this is proposed as a Cause, then wouldn’t such an approach be too “sweeping”?
The very process of interaction with a good or its use allows you to discover and accept its usefulness. It is not the simultaneous occurrence of the conditions listed by Menger that allows an object to act as a good, but the process of its use causes the emergence of accompanying meanings and circumstances.

About the time.
Time is a process of transformation, and the perception of this process acts as a sense of time. For Menger, it’s the other way around: “Every process of transformation consists of emergence and development and is conceivable only in time.”

If we take into account the nature of establishing relationships between persons and goods, then we can expand the above classification by introducing definitions of captured (forceful and organizational type) and legally produced goods.

I believe that it is completely pointless to link the value of goods with their quantity available for disposal. And we can also say that there are no benefits that could be obtained without labor. Of course, for some time it can be assumed that these include air, sometimes warm air, such as habitat, and sunlight. It is possible to talk about the basic conditions for the existence of life and argue about the lack of value of these benefits, if only one does not take into account the will and work of the creator of this world. These are products of a “different economy”, to the level of understanding of which our consciousness has not risen. But air has already turned into a natural material, the consumption of which has already begun to be deliberately limited, since the limit of use is already visible. It’s better not to talk about water and fruits in the same regard. This is one argument for resolving the issue of the relationship between the value of goods and their rarity.

In order to more fully understand this issue, it is necessary, initially, to proceed from the conditions and circumstances of the preservation and reproduction (expanded in the qualitative and qualitative dimension) of life, an individual life, because value acts as a subjective relation and an incommensurable value for different persons. Value is a manifestation of an individual attitude towards a particular good in their overall structure. It has no direct connection with the need and its satisfaction, as well as with use and exchange value, price and value. Value is manifested only in the formed consumption structure. Many newly emerging goods have a high value compared to others in the general structure of goods; they often become the subject of figurative demand enhanced by psychological effects, but they do not have a corresponding value proportional to the cost.

A high concentration of a certain good in an individual is the basis for him to trade with other persons and obtain material rights. In fact, any excess of the amount of goods over immediate physical needs always turns into material rights (sometimes into their loss). Apparently, at first, spontaneous deviation occurred, and then its place was taken by specialization in deviation for the production of material rights as an economic type of need.

Having written the above, I did not at all expect to find such a definition in Menger:
“Utility is the suitability of an object to serve the satisfaction of human needs and therefore (precisely as perceived utility) is a general condition for the nature of goods. And non-economic goods are useful to the same extent as economic ones, due to their suitability to satisfy human needs, and this suitability of them is also must be known by people, since otherwise they could not become goods at all."
I can no longer disagree with this definition.

Menger is looking for stable relationships between value and cost, but these are completely different categories: value is a more psychological category, value is an economic one. There is only one connection here - everything, one way or another, is linked to the subject of these relations. He tries to deduce and show the relationship between value and price, but these are just similar words, and the latter is an economic declaration.

Initially, the basis of economic exchange was the deviation of the actual availability of goods from physical needs and the transformation of this deviation into material rights with subsequent specialization on this deviation. Subsequently, the life activities of subjects of economic relations were planned and carried out based on the intention of obtaining material rights on the basis of specialization in deviation.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the basis of economic interaction is not just exchange, but a set of acts of purchase and sale, presented separately on the market. In each of these acts, on the one hand, there are always material rights.

Using the category “Utility” to search for grounds for economic interaction, it seems to me, does not make any sense. This is a subjective economic characteristic. Value and utility are manifested in economic interaction not directly, but as figurative grounds for demand and as one of the engines of socio-economic progress.

Price is just a declaration of value. It is quite difficult to deduce economic laws from declarations. To give some indication of the procedure and environment for setting prices, one could start from several influencing circumstances:
1 - Prices are set and exist only in the economic environment;
2 - Prices are set by the parties to the relationship;
3 - Understanding the subject’s position in relation to setting a price is carried out by a person.. (Example in this chapter)
4 -Price setting is one of the manifestations of economic freedom;
5 - Setting a price acts as an intention to create value.

>Menger seeks stable relationships between value and cost, but
>these are completely different categories: value - more
funny as it may seem, the terms “value” and
"cost" came into Russian as translations
the same English word - value
When translating “Capital” into Russian, value was deliberately and for ideological reasons translated as “cost”, because “cost” in Russian has a somewhat more objectivist connotation. This emphasized the objective nature of value, which is fully consistent with the labor theory of value, with which Marx’s materialism is consistent.
If you don't take my word for it, consult any classic English text on value theory. You will not find a distinction (at least at the level of designation in different words) between value and cost. Only the word value is used. Even in Capital.

I will not object to the essence of the remark. I will only note that no matter how the terms “value” and “cost” are related to each other for an economic good, none of these characteristics are given objectively, i.e. regardless of the assessing subject.
Many authors have already criticized the objective (including labor) theory of value and arrived at a subjective theory. The latest (and one of the best) expositions can be found in Mises's Human Action.

>Price is just a declaration of value.
Prices are the ratios of values ​​of economic goods expressed in money, for which really there is an exchange of these benefits. Whether they are declarative or not (I don’t understand what this means) - there is an exchange, which means prices determine the conditions of human activity. And then, whether we like it or not, we are obliged to determine the patterns of exchange taking into account prices.

>Setting a price acts as an intention to create value.
Senseless nonsense.

>material rights
And I, naive, for some reason was always convinced that rights are intangible by definition...

>is not just an exchange, but a set of acts
>purchases and sales presented separately on the market
...which economists call exchange in the general sense of the word
The expression “exchange takes place on the market” means that a number of “acts of buying and selling, presented separately on the market,” are taking place.

In the market there is not exchange, but exchange. Super objection, by golly!

Menger really has a rather vague definition of the relationship between the utility of a good and the good itself. Therefore, misunderstandings are possible here.

I would advise starting to study the foundations of subjectivist theory from a different interpretation - from Mises’s work “Human Action” - it is basically the same, but there is much less room for confusion in the head. And judging by your subsequent comments, there is confusion and it is quite serious.

By the way, when presenting his doctrine of economic good, Mises does not refer to the term “utility” at all.

I do not see any basis for representing value as use and exchange value, as well as for the transition from these phrases to the concept of price. I think that, in this case, in fact, the development of concepts does not proceed from value to price, but rather an unconvincing justification is adapted to the latter. This justification is similar to a systemic fallacy, the use of which distorts the structure of economic interaction.




A product is a (material) carrier of value intended for sale.
We can say that the starting point in the appearance and existence of a product is the intention to obtain material rights in monetary form as a result of the sale of an existing or manufactured product. And not the other way around, as is often imagined.

I really like the trick of replacing the history of money with the history of the monetary device, which for some reason is usually called monetary circulation. The entire history of money consists of the facts of its creation (production) and use. Money always has a complete cycle: production - use. Therefore, we can only talk about money circulation as a non-existent phenomenon. But on the other hand, we can always say something about the circulation of monetary media - about their transfer from account to account or from pocket to pocket along with the emergence and use of money. What passes for the history of monetary circulation is obviously the history of the monetary structure.

I think that such a widespread fairy tale “about the white bull” is not able to explain the nature of the origin of money. "Bull" attached value to the bearer of money, not to money. When moving, "Bychok" could gain weight and lose weight. And it doesn’t matter at all whether he acted either in the role of cattle or in the role of a precious metal. No product, regardless of its value, has ever been money, but, of course, some of them have been carriers of money.

Yes, you are driving yourself into terrible jungle. And metaphysicians never dreamed of separating concepts from themselves “money was never money,” congratulations.
I'm too stupid to understand this, to return it to simple Spinoza.

Sergey, hello!
Personally, you can attribute everything that has been said to my eccentricity, but, meanwhile, pay attention to the fact that we are talking on the margins of a work called “Foundations of Political Economy.” In addition, it is presented as the foundations of political economy. To me, these foundations appear to be a parachute of political economy that began to take shape in flight. It is no longer possible not to notice this. I must also say that I give due importance to this work and the author's role in highlighting the issue.
What did I actually say? It may be that a certain slate in political economy is clean again.

Speaking of Ludwig von Mises, here are his words:
“The struggle for freedom, in the final analysis, is not resistance to despots or oligarchs, but resistance to the despotism of public opinion. It is not a struggle of many against a few, but a struggle of a minority—sometimes a minority of one—against the majority.”

"The dissident minority is undemocratic because it refuses to accept as truth the opinion of the majority. All means of "eliminating" these rebellious scoundrels are "democratic" and therefore moral."

The words are simple, but the idea is wonderful. This is Mises! ("Theory and History")

Start
70s of the XIX century. in world history
economic thought was marked as follows
called the marginalist revolution. IN
such dating has a large share
conventions; for example, the main provisions
marginal utility theories were
formulated by G. G. Gossen for a long time
forgotten work of 1844, and the beginning
massive penetration
marginalist ideas into economic
literature should be attributed only to
mid 1880s. It proceeded differently
marginalist revolution in different countries.
But the fact remains: publications in 1871.
"Theories of Political Economy" W. St.
Jevons and "Foundations of Political
economy" by K. Menger, and in 1874 "Elements
pure political economy" L.
Walras laid new foundations for Western
economic theory, on which she has since
time and develops. Relevance
the book offered to the reader is,
therefore, in the fact that for the first time [neither
one of the works of the founders
marginalism (L. Walras, W. St. Jevons, K.
Menger) was not published in the USSR. From the works
published in this collection were published
only "Fundamentals of the Theory of Value"
economic goods" by E. Böhm-Bawerka (1929)]
gives you the opportunity to get to know each other
one of the origins of modern Western
economic thought - the Austrian school
political economy.

IN
within the framework of this introductory article we
Let's try to consider the characteristic features,
distinguishing the Austrian school as a whole from
other areas of marginalism:
Lausanne school (L. Walras, V. Pareto),
works by W. St. Jevons and A. Marshall, as well as
give an individual description
each of its three founders,
presented their works in this
book. But first, apparently, it is necessary to say
a few words about the marginalist revolution
generally. That three people (Jevons,
Menger and Walras), working independently of each other
from each other and based on completely different
national scientific traditions - and in the 19th century.
national characteristics of English,
German and French political
savings appeared very clearly [Blumin I.G.
Subjective school in political economy.
T.I.M.: Publishing House Com. Academy, 1931], -- came to
very close to the conclusions, there was no way
a coincidence. Revolution like us
We know that a revolutionary situation gives rise to.
What was the pre-marginalist
the situation in Western economic theory, and
more precisely in the theory of value (value), since
did the revolution take place here?

Dominant
in this area the paradigm was based on
achievements of the English classical school in
interpretations of J. S. Mill, who in 1848
carelessly stated that “fortunately, in
laws of value there is nothing left
would find out to modern or anyone
future author; theory of this subject
is complete" [Mill J. S. Fundamentals
political economy. T. 2. M.: Progress, 1986.
P. 172].

These
immutable "laws of value"
boiled down to the following:

1. cost of the thing
   It can be temporary (market) or permanent (natural).
   The latter is the center, around
   which he hesitates and strives for
   first;
2. market value is determined by demand and
   proposal. At the same time, demand in turn
   depends on market value;
3. natural value in different ways
   determined for non-reproducible and
   freely reproduced goods. In the first
   case (this also includes monopoly
   situation) it depends on the rarity of the item, in
   second (predominant) - on the amount of costs
   production of goods and their delivery to the market;
4. production costs consist of
   wages and profits on capital and
   are ultimately determined by the quantity
   labor expended [Mill J. S., Decree. op. T.
   2. P. 222--224].

So
Thus, in the classical model the average
price level (natural cost)
determined in the sphere of production and
is given by costs. Offer of the same product
determined by the demand that develops at
given price.

This is
objective production theory
value in its most condensed form. Should
It should be noted that on the European continent this
the theory existed in a slightly different form.
On the one hand, there was a strong tradition,
going back to Galiani and Condillac and
linking the value of a thing to its usefulness.
On the other hand, the German economic
literature influenced by powerful
German philosophy of that time, devoted
a lot of attention to the meaning of the word “value” itself
(Wert), correlated it with other human
values, etc. However, the theory of value
continent usually included those described by J.
S. Mill's "laws", although this is how
rule led to contradictions [For example
can serve as the famous "Textbook
political economy" by A. Wagner (Wagner A.,
Nasse A. Lehrbuch der Politischen Okonomie. 2. Aufl. Leipzig, 1875)]. But from
shortcomings was not free and she herself
classical theory in its Millian form
option. Firstly, for anyone, even the most
highly developed and wealthy society (and for
him in particular) opportunity
unlimited increase in production, from
which comes from the "cost theory"
is the exception rather than the rule.
Secondly, the objective theory interpreted
demand for a product as a "black box". That
little has been said about the defining
its factors, reduced to the banal
logical circle: demand affects prices, and
prices affect demand. Third, dualism
classical theory of value (absolutely
different explanations for free
reproducible and non-reproducible goods)
haunted scientists seeking to create
a coherent and comprehensive theory,
revealing the essence of value (cost).
(And these are the goals that were set for any
science in those pre-positivist times.) ["We
we need just such a theory that everything
phenomena of value would be derived from one and
the same beginning, and, moreover, would give them
a comprehensive explanation," wrote Böhm-Bawerk].

All
these weaknesses caused criticism of the classical
theories from a variety of positions. If
the German historical school criticized it
for being too abstract, unhistorical
character, then K. Marx, on the contrary, decisively
cleared the labor value hypothesis from
hesitations and reservations that arose in A. Smith,
D. Ricardo and J. S. Mill, since they
wanted to reconcile this abstraction with
realities of life.

Third
The marginalists chose the path. They tried
create a monistic general theory
values ​​based on premises, absolutely
contrary to the premises of the classical
schools.

IN
as the initial simplest phenomenon
economic life they chose the attitude
person to thing, manifested in the area
personal consumption [classical school is not
included personal consumption in the item
political economy, since the influence
habits, traditions, prejudices and others
manifestations of irrationality prevail
here above the influence of competition and
economic calculation and makes
human behavior in a given area
unpredictable. Therefore, in order
create a theory of value based on
a person's relationship to a thing, marginalists
it took this attitude
rational. Man in the Ultimate Theory
utility knows the hierarchy of its
needs and, satisfying them, strives
to achieve the most
welfare]. As K. Menger wrote, “man
with your needs and your power over
means of satisfying the latter
constitutes the starting and ending point
of every human economy" (p. 89).
From this relationship between needs and
means of satisfaction, or, speaking
in more familiar language, between usefulness and
a rarity, marginalists are just deducing
phenomenon of the value of economic goods.

Armed
knowledge of the subjective value of goods,
economic entities start something if they
it is profitable, exchange or even production.
Moreover, if for the classical school
the essence of exchange should be sought in the sphere
production, then for marginalists,
on the contrary, production itself is
a kind of indirect type of exchange. The purpose of production and exchange for
each of their members is the best
satisfaction of one's needs - direct
or indirect.

So
Thus, marginalists radically
reframed the cost problem:
contents of the "black box" (consumer
ratings and consumer choice) has become
the main subject of analysis, and cause-and-effect
connections between production, exchange and
consumption changed its direction to
the opposite - the basis of value was not
past costs, and future utility, etc.

Of course
marginalists' supposed motivation
any economic activity - maximum satisfaction
individual needs - looks like
an extreme anachronism in a developed environment
capitalism of the late 19th century. However, from our point of view
point of view, this premise, taken in itself,
no more artificial than a postulate
classical (and Marxist) theory
cost about limitless possibilities
expansion of production. How fair
emphasizes Yu. B. Kochevrin, “the fruitfulness
abstractions should be defined based not on
the absence of certain realities in it, not due to
one way or another psychological or
behavioral assumptions, and from the explanation
real economic process or its
essential side" [Kochevrin Yu. B.
Neoclassical theory of production and
distribution//World Economy and
international relationships. 1987. "10. P. 45].
The question of the applicability of classical and
marginalist abstractions to various
areas of modern pricing,
definitely deserves a special mention
conversation and goes beyond the scope of this
introduction.

Long
while the Austrian school was considered in
Western economic literature only as
one of the driving forces of marginalist
revolution that reached smaller
successes than others, because not
mastered the mathematical apparatus. Such
the assessment was formed in the mid-30s of the 20th century,
when different directions of marginalism,
seemed to merge forever into one
neoclassical stream and were also
relegated to the background as a result
the next revolution in economics --
Keynesian. But in the early 70s, during
weakening of Keynesianism and revival
keen interest in microeconomics
analysis revealed that the Mohicans
Austrian school L. Mises and F. Hayek (the latter
received the Nobel Prize in 1974) carried
after all these years some of the most important
features of the Austrian school that did not give it
merge completely with neoclassical
paradigm.

So
way, compared to Lausanne and
Cambridge (Anglo-American) schools
marginalism, the Austrian school turned out to be
the most clearly defined and durable.
It is possible with a high degree of confidence
name famous economists
belonging to different generations
Austrian school, including ours
contemporaries. This is its founder K.
Menger, his students E. Böhm-Bawerk and F. Wieser (although
listen to K. Menger's lectures at the Vienna University
They never had a chance to attend university; they both graduated
it shortly before the author of "Foundations"
political economy" received there
professorial department), students of E. Böhm-Bawerk
L. Mises and J. Schumpeter, student of L. Mises F.
Hayek and his peers G. Haberler, F. Machlup,
O. Morgenstern (one of the founders of the theory
games), followers of L. Mises and F. Hayek I.
Kirzner, L. Lachmann, E. Streisler et al.

Strong
influence of various ideas of the Austrian school
influenced the Englishmen L. Robbins, J. Hicks and
J. Shackle, Swede K. Wicksell, Dutchman
Pearson, Italian M. Pantaleoni,
Americans R. Eli, S. Patten and others.
Of course, the Austrian research
tradition among its various representatives
manifested itself in different forms and in different
degree, but in all cases trace it
influence is possible.

What are
the same characteristic features of the Austrian
school of political economy? First of all this
consistent monistic
subjectivism: all categories of economic
science, the Austrians strive to derive only

from the attitude towards things economic
subject, his preferences, expectations,
knowledge. How persistently he emphasizes
Menger, any benefits in themselves, from the point of view
from an economist's point of view, are devoid of any
objective properties, and above all
values. These properties are given to them only
the corresponding attitude of one or another
subject.

So,
the essence of interest lies in different
the subject's assessment of present and future benefits,
production costs - in lost benefits,
which is expected to be productive
benefits could be brought if there were
are used not as they really are, but
otherwise, etc. At the same time, the Austrians have a subject
is not guaranteed against errors (it may, to
for example, incorrectly assess your future
needs and means of satisfying them),
and these mistakes of his will not be “discarded”
market, but will play their role by participating
on a par with more correct estimates, in
determining the price of a given good.

Special
the emphasis that the Austrians place on
future uncertainties and opportunities
mistakes, the enormous importance attached to them,
especially Menger, knowledge of economics
subject at his disposal
information, make them stand out sharply against the background
other marginalists and make their theories
especially important these days, when the problem
search and processing of information is on
the forefront of economic research.

Can
boldly say that the degree
rationality required from
economic entity located in
theories of the Austrians is an order of magnitude lower than in
models of Jevons and Walras. This
manifests itself, in particular, in other
features of the Austrian school, namely in
the fact that Austrians do not use not only
mathematical research methods, but
even geometric illustrations of their
theoretical positions (like Jevons and
Marshall). This feature of the Austrian school
catches the eye of everyone who flips through
this book - you will not find in it not only
differential equations, but also familiar
diagrams with supply and demand curves.
Of course, this can also be explained by the fact that
founders of the Austrian school,
have received a legal education, just
did not master mathematical techniques
analysis [although the same K. Menger, if desired
could very well acquire the necessary skills from
his brother - an outstanding mathematician].
However, the main reason is completely different.
The point is that the application in the theory of value
differential calculus requires
for the researcher to take some
additional assumptions. Firstly,
the good being valued must be infinite
divisible, or, what is the same, a function
utility should be continuous, not
discrete. This function should be, secondly,
differentiable, i.e. have a tangent at
each point, and thirdly, convex, for
so that the derivative at each point is
final [See interesting article by son
Menger -- Carl Menger Jr., mathematics
by profession: Menger K. Austrian marginalism and mathematical
economics. In: Carl Menger and the Austrian School... P. 38--44].

All
three additional conditions are introduced for
convenience of calculation and narrow the range of phenomena,
explained by marginalist theory. What
as for infinite divisibility, then this
property is so uncharacteristic for
most of the benefits that Jevons and Marshall
we have to make a reservation that the function
usefulness refers rather to all of them
aggregate, and not to one subject (for example,
to residents of Liverpool or Manchester). But
for the aggregate of consumers lose their meaning

subjective assessments and preferences! Except
Moreover, the mathematical version of the theory
marginal utility assumes that
the economic entity unmistakably finds
the best option for you is that
contradicts the provisions mentioned above
Austrians (primarily Menger) about
uncertainty and errors. Because the
Austrians avoid drinking
mathematical analysis, this allows them
not only cover more with your theory
a wide range of phenomena, but also preserve it
consistency and stay within limits
somewhat more realistic model
human behavior [according to exact
to E. Streisler's remark, for the Austrian
school (as opposed to mathematics) in
the phrase "marginal utility"
a noun is more important than an adjective
(Streissler E. What Extent was the Austrian School marginalist? History of
Political Economy. Vol.. 4. N 2. P. 426--461)].

Here
we come to the next distinctive
feature of the Austrian school - methodological individualism. All
economic problems of the Austrians
considered and decided at the micro level, at
individual level. They don't take into account that the whole
i.e. society is always greater than the sum of its own
parts, do not recognize specific
macroeconomic phenomena irreducible
to the simple resultant of the individual
preferences and decisions. From our point
vision, this is explained by the desire
Austrians to reveal the essence of phenomena,
cause-and-effect relationships and their
distrust of functional dependencies [cf.
the very first phrase with which Menger begins
his “Foundations...” (p. 38). To that
it should be added that the German term
"Grenznutzen" can be more accurately translated as "borderline"
utility, i.e. assessment of the value of a thing
buyer located at the "border"
between those who manage to acquire the thing, and
those who will be forced out of the market; no
allusion to "limit" in mathematics
there is no sense of the word here]. In this sense
Austrians are closer to K. Marx than to
most economists and mathematicians
who adhered to positivist
views.

IN
connections with methodological individualism
there is also a notable absence in
works of Austrian marginalists
developed ideas of balance. It is clear that
Walrasian concept of general equilibrium
was too much for the Austrians
supra-individual, requiring excessive
rationality and optimality of decisions.
Much more interesting is that in Menger's theory
the concepts of partial
equilibrium, the only equilibrium price.

Important
the factor plays a role in Austrian theory
time. Less than all other marginalists
the Austrians deserved the reproach for purely
static point of view. They didn't forget
emphasize that value judgments
people directly depend on
what time period can they calculate
satisfaction of one's needs ("period
foresight"). It is the factor
time and associated uncertainty
lead to errors by exchange participants and not
allow the general equilibrium to be established,
inherent in the timeless system of Walras,
where all prices and quantities of goods are determined
simultaneously.

Now
we have to give a group portrait of three
founders of the Austrian school, works
which are presented in this book. In their
biographies have a lot in common: all three
come from noble families, studied at
Faculty of Law, Vienna
university, entered the state
service, then alternated teaching in
university with holding important positions in
Austrian state (Böhm-Bawerk three times
was Minister of Finance, Chairman
Supreme Court of Appeal and
President of the Academy of Sciences, Wieser - Minister of Commerce), were
life members of the upper house
parliament. They were connected by friendship, and Böhm-Bawerka
and Vizer - even family relationships.

IN
the fields of economic theory are all the same,
certainly were close ideologically
comrades. However, history has destined
each of them has its own role, and precisely this “specialization”,
in our opinion, the Austrian school is obliged
early flowering and noticeable influence.

Group
Austrian limit theorists
usefulness deserves the name of the school
primarily because she had a teacher with
unquestioned scientific authority - Karl
Menger (1840--1921). When, being little known
young (31 years old) civil servants and
journalist, he decided to become a private assistant professor
University of Vienna and as
just presented recommendations
published book "Foundations of Political
savings," no one, of course, could have thought
that this work has been done for more than a hundred years
will be the main source of ideas for economists
Austrian school. Menger has practically no
there were teachers, although there were predecessors:
based mainly on German literature,
he was, however, not familiar with the works
Gossen and Thunen, in which the ideas of the ultimate
utility and marginal
productivity have found their most
early incarnation. At the same time almost
it is impossible to find any idea or
concept of Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser and their
followers, which was not anticipated
would be certain provisions and even footnotes from the "Foundations
political economy". Actually
speaking, everything that was said above about
characteristic features of the Austrian
schools in general, primarily and in
most closely related to a masterpiece
Menger. It is all the more surprising that this
The book had a very difficult fate. First
publication went almost unnoticed [if,
of course, do not count such attentive
readers like Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser and Marshall!].
The second edition of "Foundations..." has been published
only in 1923, after the death of the author, when
the main ideas of the Austrian school have already become
widely known in a more accessible
interpretations by Böhm-Bawerk and Wieser. On
the international language of economists is English
- the book was only translated
80 years after it was written.

IN
result for almost a century after
publication of "Foundations..." Menger
remained more revered than read
by the author. Revival of widespread interest
economists since the 70s of the XX century. to ideas
We owe Menger to F. Hayek, who did not
only gave many of them further
development, but also did extremely much for
their promotion and perpetuation of memory
founder of the Austrian school.

Eugene
(correct Eugen) von Böhm-Bawerk (1851--1914)
played a different role in the history of the Austrian school
role. Unlike Menger, he was first
turn a statesman of the highest
rank (the list of his positions is given above),
giving away the remaining free time
teaching. As for the deep and
leisurely research work, then on
There was practically no time left for her. Not
by chance all significant works of Böhm-Bawerk
were written by him for the first, relatively
quiet ten years of his career (1880-1889),
when he taught at Innsbruck
university: in 1881 his dissertation was published
"Rights and relations from the point of view of doctrine
on national economic benefits"; in 1884 - the first part of the main work "Capital and
profit", which contained criticism
previous theories of capital and
percent; in 1886 - published in our
collection of work "Fundamentals of the theory of value
economic goods"; in 1889 - the second part
"Capital and profit" - "Positive
theory of capital"; in 1890 - the book "To
completion of the Marxist system", in
to which Böhm-Bawerk was one of the first to subject
criticism of Marx's theory of value, citing
on the contradiction between volumes I and III of Capital.
The pace taken by Böhm-Bawerk in these years
impressive, but he certainly should have
negatively affect the depth, thoughtfulness and
the completeness of his works. Not
by chance it was Böhm-Bawerk, and not Menger
was (and still is) the main
target of criticism of the Austrian school as a whole.
But insufficient finishing of own
theoretical research (especially tangible
in "Capital and Profit") did not prevent Böhm-Bawerk
perform another important function:
eloquent propagandist of ideas
Austrian school (primarily Menger),
as well as skillful and temperamental
a polemicist who defends them in the fight against
competing theories. It is in this
quality, Böhm-Bawerk acquired a wide
fame in the scientific world (it is no coincidence that
in our literature, starting with "Political
rentier economy" N.I. Bukharin, it was he
was proclaimed the head of the Austrian school [see.
See also: Economic Encyclopedia.
Political Economy. T. 1. M.: Sovetskaya
Encyclopedia, 1972. P. 152]). Selected for
publications in our collection work
allows the reader to formulate the most
a complete picture of Böhm-Bawerk as
popularizer and polemicist [most
significant research by Böhm-Bawerk in
field of theory ("Capital and profit")
are currently preparing for release in
one of the publishing houses]. Böhm-Bawerk was
a lawyer not only by education, but also by
way of thinking and style of presentation. He
strived for clarity, persuasiveness and
clarity of argumentation and was not inclined
to careful and comprehensive consideration
each definition in the spirit of Menger, who
brought laconicism and elegance of style to
sacrifice of precision of meaning. This difference is good
is also transmitted in Russian translation. Reader,
who wants to make an initial
presentation of the main ideas
Austrian school, can, in principle, begin
precisely from the work of Böhm-Bawerk.

Third
from the authors presented in our collection
is Baron Friedrich von Wieser (1851--1926). He
contributed to more than two of his colleagues
design of the Austrian school precisely in
school - being the most capable of them
teacher, he dedicated 42 years of his life
presentation of the Austrian theory with
professorship (first in Prague in 1884-1902, and then in Vienna, where he inherited
Menger's chair), and also wrote the first
systematic treatise-textbook
Austrian school - "Theory
public economy" (1914). Contribution
Wieser's contribution to the Austrian theory is very
peculiar. Firstly, he became famous for
that gave bright and memorable names
formulations of many ideas of marginalism.
It was he who first used the terms "ultimate
utility" (Grenznutzen), "imputation"
(Zurechnung), "Gossen's laws".

Secondly,
it was Wieser who was the first to succeed [in his works
"On the origin and fundamental laws
economic value" (1884) and "Natural
value" (1889)] formulate the principle
lost profits, giving purely
subjective explanation of costs, as well as
develop the theory in more detail
imputation, inferential value
productive goods from their value
product suitable for consumption, and for the first time
state the central principle
equality of marginal products,
produced by this productive
good in all its applications [as B. writes.
Seligman, Wieser's task was
extension of Menger's ideas to spheres
production and distribution. (Seligman B.
The main trends of modern
economic thought. M.: Progress, 1968. P. 168)].

Third,
one of the early representatives of the Austrian school
only Wieser tried to connect ideas
marginal utility with capabilities
the most appropriate organization
society as a whole. Weezer can be called
least "analytical" and most
prone to synthesis, descriptive and
sociological approach representative
Austrian school. In this sense he
closest to German historical
school. Unlike Menger and Böhm-Bawerk,
former staunch liberals, Wieser
tried to justify the need
government intervention and
central planning (the term "planning"
he again used it for the first time in Western
economic theory) in order to
implement the principles of marginal utility in
life and provide optimal
functioning of the economy (his youth
commitment to the ideas of socialism, as well as
passion for fascism in old age,
obviously cannot be considered an accident).

Let's move on
to more detailed characteristics
published in the collection of works.

TO.
Menger. Foundations of Political Economy
(Grundsatze der Volkswirtschaftslehre) [this is the title, as we
seems really more accurate
conveys the content of the book than the literal
translation: "Fundamentals of the doctrine of folk
farm"].

Mentioned
above the paradox of “reverence-unreadability”
this book, in our opinion, is not accidental, its
the reasons are rooted in certain features
Menger's work, which you want
draw the reader's attention.

Before
In all, it should be noted that the book has
subtitle: "General part". This
means that we are dealing with an introductory part
to a much more extensive work, Menger, so
like Marx, he was essentially a man
one book that was supposed to contain
a harmonious and comprehensive system of categories
economy. Working on it (never
written) treatise he dedicated a large
part of his life (since 1903 he even left for
this his professorial chair in
university). Menger did not consent to
reissue and translation of "Foundations..." to
as long as they are carefully processed
and supplemented, will not take their place in his
general theoretical system.

Except
Moreover, faced with misunderstanding and
hostile reaction of German economists,
who at that time were under strong
influence of anti-theoretical
new historical school and its head Schmoller,
Menger was forced to enter into a deal with him
martial arts on the methodological front.
His second major work, “Research
on the method of social sciences and political science
economy in particular" (1833) not only
contained polemics with inductive
methodology of the historical school, but also
revealed the main methodological
the principles of Menger himself [chief among them
is that economics
should identify the simplest, typical
elements of reality and ascend from them to
more complex phenomena, where the action of precise
laws of theory are difficult to recognize due to
influence of non-economic motives]. Unfolding after that
fierce polemic with Schmoller,
entered into the history of economic science as
"dispute about method" [see about this dispute and
his various assessments: Bostaph S. The Methodological Debate
Between Carl Menger and the German Historicists (Atlantic Economic Journal.
1978. V. VI. N 3. P. 3--16)], Menger gave enough
a lot of energy dedicated to writing
proposed treatise.

All
the above does not allow us to present
"Bases..." Menger's requirements,
which the finished product must satisfy
theoretical system, e.g.
criticize them for having a very narrow circle
issues raised: values, prices,
origin and essence of money. Besides,
the style itself is important, in which
written "Foundations...". Trying
outline the most general principles of your
theory, Menger studiously avoids
excessive detail and categoricalness,
leaving an explanation of many specific
questions for later [judging by the preparatory
materials, Menger was going to devote
the second part of his treatise on research
interest, wages, rent, credit and
paper money; the third part is “applied”
industrial production theories and
trade; fourth - criticism of modern
him economic system and proposals
on its reform. (Hayek F. von Carl Menger. In: Menger C. Principles of
Economics. N. Y.-L., 1981. P. 16)]. This creates
the impression that he foresaw those
contradictions in which one can get confused
his theory in a more coarse, popular
interpretation. It's somewhere deep
thoughtful, and somewhere, maybe,
intuitive foresight combined with
impressive internal logic and
sequence of presentation led to
to what is against Menger's "Foundations..."
it is impossible to nominate a majority
critical arguments that are usually
speak out against his "inconsistent
followers" - Böhm-Bawerk and Wieser. Not
accidental building of the new Austrian theory
Mises, Hayek and others built mainly
way on the Menger foundation,
abandoning many concepts of it
students. We will now do a short
a journey through the "Foundations of Political
savings", focusing only on those
moments that distinguish Menger from his
predecessors or contemporaries or
had a significant impact on his
followers. As for the
logical connection of the arguments, then it
is presented by the author so clearly and clearly,
which, in our opinion, does not require special
comments.

"Grounds..."
consist of three large sections. First of
them (chapters one - three) is dedicated to
the cornerstone of Austrian theory - the doctrine of subjective value. But
interesting that the third chapter, where,
in fact, this is what the theory of value contains,
the author presupposes two preparatory
chapters (about 1/4 of the entire book!) devoted to
the doctrine of goods in general, and economic
benefits in particular. In defining the first
Menger emphasizes the importance of knowledge
human of their beneficial properties.
The peculiarity of the latter is their
rare, but curious that Menger avoids
pronounce this term because
What makes an economic good is not absolute
rarity, and exceeding the planned
need for a good or "necessary"
quantities" (specifically Menger's
category denoting quantitatively
specific need of the individual for
some foreseeable period) over
the amount of this good, which, as
the individual expects to be available to him. So,
already in the first definitions one can see
Menger's general style of research: rejection
using short but ambiguous
terms, the desire to give as much as possible
adequate, albeit verbose, presentation
thoughts. Some of the most famous ideas
the first section concerns the division of all benefits
for the benefits of higher and lower orders, as well as
principle of complementarity (complementarity)
productive goods. Consistently
going up the river of time from his
starting point - satisfaction
needs, Menger first explained
the value of productive goods
consumer goods produced with their help
benefits, and not vice versa, as was the case with the authors,
explaining value by cost
production. For Menger, costs are only valuable
in the event that with their help there will be
a valuable product is produced.
Let us recall, by the way, that the same problem
consumer assessment of produced
costs through the cost of the product - socially necessary costs
- saw and
K. Marx tried to solve it in Volume III of Capital,
in the chapter on market price and market
cost. (An interesting example of how
authors coming from completely different
prerequisites, often come to very
similar conclusions!) Principle
complementarity enriches the picture
new colors: it turns out that
productive goods may depreciate
and even cease to be benefits if
at least one necessary “component” is missing
element from that set of productive
goods that are necessary for a certain
production process (output,
unthinkable for cost theory). Development
Menger problems of complementarity, and
also (later) changing proportions, in
which can be connected
production benefits, indicates
that the founder of the Austrian school
reflected Jevons and Walras much more deeply
in his theory the sphere of production and,
therefore, his theory is in no way
deserved the title of "political economy"
rentier" for which "production,
labor expended to obtain
material wealth lies out of sight"
[Bukharin N.I. Political economy of the rentier.
M.: Orbita, 1988. P. 19--20].

Draws
attention to " 4 first chapters, in full
dedicated to the importance of the time factor and
the uncertainty it causes for
economic activities of people.
Focused in this paragraph, as well as
the statements scattered throughout the book are not
leave doubt that the approach
Menger's approach to economics cannot be called
static and timeless (as opposed to
approach of Jevons or Walras). If
Menger's intended treatise was written, we
most likely you would get something other than static
equilibrium model, and economic theory
activity as a process occurring in
time and space.

In
in the second chapter we want to draw your attention
reader to a striking example of Menger's
methodological monism: from
relative rarity of goods (see explanation
above) Menger deduced human egoism, and
also a property phenomenon! (see pp. 78, 82).
The analysis of the transfer of goods from
economic to non-economic, and
on the contrary (pp. 82--87). Here, as in some
subsequent places, there is a noticeable tendency
Menger to historical research
economic institutions. Really,
uncompromising fight against "vices"
historicism", absolutization of descriptive
and did not exclude inductive methods
Menger, nor his followers
respect for economic
history (about this, in particular,
witness the dedication of the "Foundations..."
W. Roscher - head of the German historical
schools). This also distinguishes the Austrian
school from other areas of marginalism (for
with the exception of Marshall).

Chapter
the third is central in the entire book, it
contains a theory of subjective value. IN
difference from other marginalists Menger
determined the value of goods not by quantity
the benefits they bring, and in importance
the needs they satisfy. This,
seemingly insignificant difference
actually plays an important role. It
indicates that Menger: 1)
develops a theory that later
called the ordinal version
marginalism: the need for each good is not
has an absolute value and is expressed
only in comparison with the utility of another
benefits (the numbers in his tables are conditional
character and express not magnitude, but hierarchy
needs - see note. us. 156); 2) not
connects, unlike Jevons, his theory
values ​​with a hedonistic interpretation
nature of man, going back to Bentham (for
this is for the marginalists who claimed
explanation of "psychology"
business entity, suffered greatly
from contemporaries-psychologists [See. more details:
Avtonomov V.S. Search for new paths // Origins.
1990. "2. P. 187--188]). It must be said that Menger
I didn’t use it at all when building my own
theory of the term "utility".

Along the way
Menger solves what has existed for a long time in
economic theory paradox: the most
benefits beneficial to human life
are not always the most
valuable. He does this by noting that
value is attached by people only
economic, i.e. relatively rare,
benefits.

Draws
pay attention to the categoricalness with which
Menger advocates a purely subjective
the nature of value (p. 101), which does not exist outside
people (remember that for supporters
objective theories, including Marx,
"value" or "cost" is often
used as a synonym for goods
regardless of whether there is someone in need
subject).

Outlining
his formulation of the principles of diminishing
the importance of the utilities being satisfied and
equal importance to all satisfied
needs (correspond to I and II laws
Gossen), Menger places the second of them in
footnote as a special case of the first (p. 109). For
of all general equilibrium theorists this
the principle, on the contrary, is decisive.

Most
Menger's argument looks strained,
consistently coming from satisfaction
needs, where this motive is obviously
does not play a predominant role. Indicative in
in this sense, the paragraph “On productivity
capital", where Menger goes through
abstract as from the motive of accumulation
capital, and from specifically
entrepreneurial motives,
later studied by I. Schumpeter in “Theory
economic development" [Schumpeter J.
Theory of economic development. M.:
Progress, 1982. P. 193].

IN
This chapter is the first time Menger has written in economics.
literature accepts the assumption that
that a certain amount of product can
be produced using various
combinations of productive goods (pp. 139--140).
This idea of ​​substitution of productive goods
(which Menger's successors abandoned
Böhm-Bawerk and Wieser) later received
Western economic thought significant
development, and in particular underlies the theory
production functions.

IN
his theory of the value of productive
Fortunately, Menger takes another bold step - he refuses to distinguish between three
main factors of production: land,
labor and capital. This long-standing tradition
violates on the grounds that the value
all types of goods, including land and labor,
determined on the basis of the same
the principle he formulated - the value of their
products. At the same time, Menger again shows
their anti-hedonic orientation and
criticizes popular theory (e.g.
Jevons), according to which a person
expending labor receives compensation for
associated unpleasant sensations (p. 146).

But,
perhaps the most important from the point of view
further development of Western
economic theory had the following contributions
Menger. Speaking about the factors determining
the value of goods of higher orders, Menger (on. p.
140--141) sets out an idea that later
Wieser developed most thoroughly. This
"opportunity" principle
cost"), which entered the arsenal most
important tools of modern
microeconomic theory. According to
Menger's value of a productive good
determined by the difference between the value
product, which is planned with its help
produce, and the value of others,
satisfying less important needs
goods that could be produced with
alternative use of this
productive good.

Second
section "Foundations..." includes chapters
fourth and fifth. Its content is transition
from subjective value to price, i.e. to
exchange proportion of goods. Relationship between
the second and first sections are the relation
phenomena to essence ["Prices are the only
sensory elements of everything
process..." (P. 163)]. Menger
consistently derives prices from
individual, subjective values, but
takes into account the objective influence
environment - various types of exchange. First step,
which Menger demands from him
subjectivist approach - refusal
prerequisites for equivalent exchange. After all
this premise presupposes equality
benefits for some reason objectively inherent in them
the indicator itself. Menger takes this step
declaring that there can be no exchange
equivalent because it is always beneficial
to both its participants: after him their
needs are better satisfied
than before it (pp. 150--151). Note that this conclusion
absolutely inevitably follows from the chosen
author of the initial premises:
satisfying needs as
the only motive of any economic
activities. (In Marx's Capital
exchange analysis is implicit
prerequisite for the existence of capital and
the dominant role of the accumulation motive
capital, which breaks out into
Chapter 4 of Volume I. One for all capitalists
the motive of accumulation by its very essence
presupposes the commensurability of goods. U
According to Menger, goods are objectively incommensurable:
how many people, so many values
given amount of goods.)

Action
this premise is also manifested in
determining the boundaries of exchange: if further
exchange will cease to improve satisfaction
the needs of its participants, it
will stop (see pp. 155--156). (For comparison:
For Marx, the boundaries of exchange are boundaries
production, and not vice versa, and the latter in
in turn, are established only by the possibility
continuation and acceleration of the process
accumulation, the very motive of accumulation according to
is limitless in nature. As for
accumulation possibilities, then they are given
effective demand, and
the only factor influencing
the last one is income.) Not difficult
note that the “needs based” approach
will completely rehabilitate such an important area
economic activities such as trade.
Classicists and Marxists, as is known,
denied the productive nature of labor in
this industry, leaving him only
redistribution of what is produced.
Some provisions read today as
a burning argument in defense of trade
intermediaries, relevant in our current
parliamentary debates.

I want to
also note two modest in volume, but not
by value, fragment. The first one is about "economic
sacrifices required by barter transactions"
(p. 161). Here, if you wish, you can see
the beginnings of the concept of "transactional"
costs", playing in modern
Western neo-institutionalist
literature an outstanding role [Kapelyushnikov R.
I. Economic theory of property rights.
M.: IMEMO, 1990. P. 28--37]. Another is the first in
theoretical economic literature
distinction between demand prices and prices
proposal (20 years before Marshall) which,
undoubtedly, Menger was prompted by his
the practice of a stock observer.

Main
part of chapter five is devoted to education
prices under different conditions - with
isolated exchange, seller monopoly and
competition between buyers and, finally, with
bilateral competition. Noteworthy
attention to the order of analysis in which
the logical transition does not come from free
competition to monopoly (as in all
modern Western textbooks), but vice versa.
This, of course, did not mean that Menger
based on the existence of real
capitalist giant monopolies
late XIX - early XX centuries. This
The sequence is dictated to the author: 1)
the research methodology he chose - from
simplest cases to increasingly complex ones; 2)
penchant for historical parallels (and
historically relatively free
competition is definitely
late stage product
commodity exchange) (see pp. 183--184) and 3) the same
all-pervasive subjectivism: the simplest
for Menger is the case when we have
dealing with the value judgments of one
buyer and one seller; more difficult if
several buyers are involved in the exchange;
it’s even more difficult if there are sellers too
several, because the theorist needs
"get into the soul" of each of the participants
exchange and find out its subjective
preferences. I wonder what the price
determined according to Menger in both monopoly and
competitive situation the same laws
subjective value, but these laws
appear under monopoly and under
competition in completely different
seller's policy: if he competes
it is unprofitable to hold the goods and resort to
price discrimination among buyers.
Menger's theory of price from all others
variants of marginalism are distinguished by
the absence of a concept in it is clear
determined equilibrium price: market
Menger's price may fluctuate between
estimates of a unit of good are the least powerful of
competitors who entered into the exchange and the most
the strongest of those who never made it
do (pp. 175--176). The more competitors, the
there is already room for price fluctuations, but that's all
equal to some part of the price in each case
is not explained by a subjective factor
values, but the ability to bargain.

Important
a mediating link in the transition from
original abstraction of the individual
economy aimed at direct
consumption, to developed exchange
economy typical for
capitalist economy is
Menger's doctrine of consumption and exchange
the value of the good. Both are pure for him
subjective values ​​(exchange value
goods are the value of other goods that
you can get it in return). If exchange
the value of a person's good
more consumption, exchange can
happen, if vice versa - no. Ratio
same use and exchange value
determined by the amount of good
at the disposal of that person.
Thus, for large owners,
for example, manufacturers, predominant, or
"economic", as Menger puts it,
must invariably be exchange, and not
the use value of what he produces
goods. So, Menger corrects the accepted
them for the prevailing consumer motive
economic activity, without disturbing
the same time of its initial premises.

Finally,
the last section of the book (chapters seven and
eighth) is devoted to the essence of money and its
origin. These questions are always
worried Menger both in theory (among him
of the few works included two
articles (1892 and 1900) about money for the Directory
in state sciences", and for
of the second edition of the reference book, the article was
completely redesigned), and in practice
(in the same 1892 Menger was a member of the Imperial
commission on monetary reform and played in it
main role). Menger's approach to essence
money is also peculiar - it takes it out of
different "ability of goods to sell"
(Absatzfahigkeit). Here we are dealing with purely
Menger category, which can be
it would be most accurate to translate into
modern language as "liquidity".
Menger means the ability of a product
always find sales in any quantity, in
at least with a small loss in price (p.
213). The most liquid product becomes
money.

Factor
sales ability is so great
meaning that the exchange may not be started
for the sake of better satisfaction of needs,
but for the sake of obtaining a more exchangeable good.
It's easy to see that Menger is here
rises to the next level
specifying the motives of economic
activities, taking into account the realities of monetary
farms.

Job
E. Böhm-Bawerka "Fundamentals of the theory of value
economic goods" was for the first time
published in 1886 in a German magazine
"Conrads Jahrbucher fur Nationalokonomie und Statistik". This
representative's first appeal
Austrian school directly to
German readers (remember that exactly in
At that time, the “dispute about the method” was raging,
which ended in “organizational conclusions” - supporters of the Austrian school were
it is prohibited to occupy professorial chairs in
Germany). In this work, as noted
Soviet researcher I. G. Blyumin, "Böhm-Bawerk
made it clear
exposition of the theory of value of the Austrians... With
with good reason the "Austrians" could
say: “Die, but it’s better than Böhm-Bawerk
tell me about the theory of marginal utility""
[Böhm-Bawerk E. Fundamentals of the theory of value
economic benefits. M.-L. 1929. P. IV].

To
to avoid repetition, we'll stop here
only in those moments where Böhm-Bawerk contributes
something new compared to Menger's theory.

WITH
the very first pages are clearly visible
Böhm-Bawerk's desire to bring more
strong bridges between subjective theory
Menger-Wieser values ​​and objective
price proportions based on
market. For this purpose, Böhm-Bawerk calls
exchange value objective value,
inherent in material goods themselves (p. 249).
Let us recall that Menger did not consider barter
value is an objective property of the goods themselves:
in his interpretation, exchange value is
subjective value of goods that can be
receive in exchange for the existing one. Hard
separation of subjective and objective
values ​​will be reflected in Böhm-Bawerk and
later. It is enough to point out the structure
a book in which the author distinguishes two parts:
theory of subjective value and theory
objective exchange value.

IN
the first part of the innovations introduced by Böhm-Bawerk,
are like that. Reasoning about the hierarchical scale
needs (p. 274), he strengthens it
realism in what the table does
omissions because some needs
can only be satisfied entirely, and not
in parts (this is the next step after Menger,
removing the Austrian theory of value from
mathematical version of marginalism). Böhm-Bawerk
gives a clear definition of subjective
value of goods through its marginal benefit (p.
285). It should be noted that this translation
conveys the meaning more accurately than the generally accepted one
teachings of the Austrian school. Usefulness
(Nutzlichkeit) Austrians call the characteristic
of this type of benefit in general, benefit (Nutzen)
-- characteristics of a certain quantity

of this good.

Own
Böhm-Bawerk's contribution is his attempt
find the quantitative relationship between
the total value of these goods and the marginal
usefulness (pp. 286--287). Böhm-Bawerk believes that
marginal utilities of individual units
of a given good have the property
additivity, but not multiplicativity.
Marginal utility of units of a given
stock (of the same quality) in case
summation will not be the same, since
they are designed to satisfy
needs of varying importance. (Happening,
when goods are originally intended for
sales, Böhm-Bawerk considers separately
and multiplicativity is allowed there.)
It should be noted that prudent
Menger completely avoided this problem.
He examines the concepts of wealth and property
before determining the value of goods and not
returns to them later. Wherein
Menger insisted on the relative, not the
absolute nature of value and not
assumed the possibility of measuring it in
any units. Böhm-Bawerk, trying
quantify the overall value,
forced, without proper grounds, to proceed from
measurability of value, i.e. move to
more vulnerable to cardinalist criticism
versions of marginalism [deep criticism
Böhm-Bawerk's doctrine of measurability
value was given by an outstanding Russian economist
E. E. Slutsky (Slutsky E. Zur Kritik des Bohm-Baverkschen Wertbegriffs
und seiner Lehre von der Messbarkeit des Wertes//Schmollers Jahrbuch. V. LI. N
4. S. 37--52)].

Most
This is clearly formulated in Chapter Three,
where Böhm-Bawerk asks himself the question: “Can we
can we determine the magnitude of this difference (between
sensations) more precisely, can we express it in
numbers?" (p. 303) and gives him
affirmative answer.

At
in this he refers to the fact that we have to
countless times to choose between
one large and many small
pleasures, although this is obviously not at all
proves the measurability of value in
absolute values. Postulating this
way "digital determination of quantity
pleasures and hardships" (p. 304), Böhm-Bawerk
turns out to be much closer to Jevons and even
Bentham with his "arithmetic of happiness"
than to Menger [Avtonomov V.S. Model
person in bourgeois political
economy from Smith to Marshall // Origins. 1989. "
1. pp. 204--219. This is evidenced by
Böhm-Bawerk's use of hedonic
terminology that Menger avoided].

Trying
bring the theory of subjective value closer to
conditions of “developed exchange relations”,
Böhm-Bawerk draws on for explanation
individual difficult cases concept
substitutive marginal benefit. Author
concludes that the value for
man's lost winter coat
in most cases it is not measured
marginal utility, and marginal
the usefulness of other goods that will have to
don't buy or sell to buy
coat to replace the lost one. She is in her
the queue depends on the price of the coat on the market (than
it is more expensive, the greater the loss of other goods).
So ultimately
subjective value of a given product
determined by its own price. This logical
the circle has long been
main target for Marxist critics
Austrian theory (since Hilferding
and Bukharin). Similar criticism applies to Menger
inapplicable, since it has the value of goods
determined only by intensity
needs and the presence of goods and in no way
depends on the price.

That
the same can be said about Böhm-Bawerk’s addiction
values ​​from "the relationship between demand and
supply", wealth or poverty
person (pp. 294--295).

Main
Böhm-Bawerk's contribution to world science - the idea of
that the constantly existing difference
between the value of a product and those determined by it
the value of total production costs (i.e.
e. profit) depends on the duration
production period (pp. 327--328). On this
thesis, Böhm-Bawerk's theory was built
capital, profit and interest in his work
"Capital and profit" (part II).

Big
Böhm-Bawerk's attempt is also of interest
combine the law of subjective value with
law of production costs (p. 333). Author
recognizes the status of the law of costs
rules by which in private
case of unlimited possibilities
increasing production really
you can measure the value of "high utility"
product, although the costs themselves are ultimately
account are determined by the value of the least
useful (marginal) product.

Big
significance for the substantiation of not only Böhm-Baverkov,
but also the entire marginalist theory of value
has a small chapter seven. Here is Böhm-Bawerk
responds to accusations of unrealism
marginalist model of man,
doing a huge amount
cumbersome calculations in order to
determine the value of goods (especially “remote
order"). The author's counterarguments (which
repeated with slight variations
supporters of marginalist - neoclassical theory to this day)
are:

1. thanks to habit and skill, the majority
   calculations of this kind are almost done
   instantly, although only approximately.
   Excessive prudence is not even profitable
   - it requires unnecessary expenditure of time and effort
   [at this point the
   superiority of the Austrian school, not
   requiring absolute rationality and
   optimal choice, over mathematical
   version of marginalism. Representatives
   the latter were able to integrate this conclusion into their
   theory only more than 70 years after
   this work by Böhm-Bawerk (Stigler G. The economics of
   information//Journal of Political Economy. 1961. V. 69. P. 213--245)];
2. in most cases the new calculation is completely
   does not have to be done, because the information
   the value of a given thing is already implied
   in our memory [it’s interesting that exactly like this
   the same considerations of Marx in Volume III of Capital
   explained the determination of prices by producers
   taking into account compensation for production conditions,
   different from the average (Marx K., Engels F.
   Op. 2nd ed. T. 25. Part I. P. 221--236)];
3. finally, a developed system of division of labor
   allows the producer or owner of goods
   remote order take into account only exchange

the value of your good, leaving everything
remaining stages of production and evaluation at
share of the following entrepreneurs.

Second
part of the book - "The Theory of Objective Exchange
cost" differs from the presentation of those
the same questions by Menger as follows.
First of all Böhm-Bawerk from the very beginning
brings theoretical analysis closer to
modern reality and expresses
subjective values ​​of goods in money (he
has the right to do so, since he previously announced
on the measurability of value). Problems
monopoly and imperfect competition
teachers are presented much more deeply than
student: buyers, according to Menger, can
buy yourself not one horse, but several:
the impact of changes is being explored
proposals not only on price, but also on
number of people who bought (from Böhm-Bawerk
the latter is fixed), etc.

IN
at the same time the case is bilateral
Böhm-Bawerk's competition has been dismantled
much more thoroughly (chapter four
second part).

Before
In all, it should be noted that since Böhm-Bawerk
unlike Menger, he considers
situation of developed commodity exchange,
mediated by money, it includes
considering the subjective value of money
for buyers of different levels
solvency (relative to existing
their needs). Interestingly, with the help
he tries to refute this argument (p.
388--391) optimality of competitive
balance from the point of view of the whole society (this
the idea is central to the theory
general equilibrium since Walras).
So we have every right
call Böhm-Bawerk a fighter against the “bourgeois
apologetics"!

Largest
theoretical interest, from our point of view,
represents logical circle analysis,
arising when explaining the price
subjective value, whereas
the last one "if there is an open
market" is determined by the market price (pp. 394--400). Here we are convinced that Böhm-Bawerk
was aware of the existence of this
problems and tried to solve them. He thought,
that the market price is the price at which
the buyer only hopes to purchase the product
in the future, but because it's the future
quite uncertain, the assessment of the good is still
may be revised. At the same time, in all
In cases, the limit of its price will still be “immediate
the ultimate benefit of a given thing" (p. 397).
It cannot be said that the Böhm-Bawerk solution
really unleashed this Gordian
node After all, the market price turns into “hope”
only in very specific markets.
For example, on commodity or stock exchanges,
where there are constant price fluctuations,
or in the market for productive goods,
whose value really depends on
how much demand there will be
use what is produced with their help
product. (We argue here from the standpoint
the Austrian theory of value itself.) On those
same consumer "open" markets,
where the price at any given moment can be
quite a stable reference point for
consumer, marginal utility theory
really "slips" with this
it's nothing you can do.

Two
final chapters of Böhm-Bawerk's work
devoted to very inventive attempts
integrate into the Austrian theory of subjective
values ​​are different, alternative explanations
the same phenomenon: "the law of supply and
demand" and "the law of production costs".
From our point of view, Böhm-Bawerk introduces
useful clarifications on the concepts of demand and
sentences: classical theory understood
them as simple quantities of goods, aka
considers it necessary to correct these
quantity, taking into account the intensity of desire
buy a product even at a high price and desire

sell it even at a low price.

We advise
The reader should also note that
theory of subjective value as opposed to
"objective" theories explain such
phenomena such as markdown of goods, cheap
sales, etc., in which goods
are sold below production costs (p.
412--413).

"Theory
public economy" by F. von Wieser
(1914) ranks in the history of the Austrian school
about the same place as "Fundamentals"
political economy" by J. S. Mill in
history of English classical
political economy. This is "system completion"
organizing different ideas
authors, eclectic desire for
compromises, maximum expansion
object of study, sometimes at the expense
less depth of research (especially for
compared to Menger's "Foundations").

For
of this collection we have chosen two fragments
from Wieser's voluminous treatise. First of
continues and develops the theory of value
Menger-Böhm-Bawerk and allows the reader
get a complete picture of
Austrian theory of value in general. Second
the fragment, on the contrary, does not find any
parallels in Menger and Böhm-Bawerk and
introduces us to Wieser as a thinker,
most intensively engaged
institutional and sociological
questions.

IN
the first fragment we published (" 16--25)
contains all the main
improvements that Wieser made to
Austrian theory of value. Wherein
It is noteworthy that everything
Wieser's achievements follow the line
approximations of Menger's abstract
analysis to business practice. So,
It is precisely for these reasons that Wieser
strongly rejects the additive method
determining the total utility of a given
stock of goods when each unit has it
different marginal utilities, and
advocates the multiplicative method when
marginal utility is simply multiplied by
quantity of homogeneous goods. Next, draws
attention to detail
relationship between own limit
usefulness of the product and the costs of its
production (understood as the largest
the utility of other goods that could be
produced using these means
production). Wieser proves that in
in most cases these values
are quite close and interchangeable,
however, there are times when a sharp
change in the available stock of goods or
the need for them can lead to their
sharp discrepancy. In these cases
value is determined not by costs, but
the good's own marginal utility. .

Next,
and perhaps the most significant contribution
Wieser into the economic theory of Austrian
school is his solution to the problem
income distribution. In order to
to solve this problem, Wieser creates
theory of imputation set forth in "20--23. Menger
tries to determine the contribution of each
means of production into final income from
using a thought experiment: he
estimated how income would decrease due to
loss of a given productive good,
when other complementary goods will be
other uses have been found. Wieser thinks
This technique is artificial and not
corresponding to economic practice (to
Moreover, in this case, the total income,
attributable to all factors of production,
will be less than the value of the product). His
the solution is perhaps closer to the Walrasian one: we
must find several related ones
products (i.e. produced using
the same productive goods),
valued on the market at marginal
utility, and build a system of equations
values ​​in which the number of equations (products)
will be equal to the number of unknowns
factors of production. Solving this system,
the observer theoretically (and the producer -
practically) will be able to determine
comparative limit
productivity of production factors.

Big
Wieser also pays attention to the division
productive goods for common and
specific and different rules
imputation in each of these cases:
specific productive good
income is imputed on a residual basis.

This
Wieser's idea was further developed in
modern theories of property rights, in
which the concept of ownership of
enterprise and, accordingly, the rights to
residual income is associated precisely with
the right to dispose of specific
means of production.

Not
only in the section dedicated to Wieser, but also
stands out in our entire collection
the last fragment (" 75, 76). We included
the habit of blaming marginalists for excessive
abstractness of the analysis, its abstraction
from such important public institutions,
as property, power, etc. Meanwhile
representatives of the Austrian school
certainly showed great interest in
historical and sociological problems.
The tradition goes back to Menger and his
analysis of the history of money, but also here
It was Wieser who made the greatest contribution. His
ideas about the origin, evolution and
contradictions between private economic and
economic order, perhaps especially
interesting at the current stage of development
our society.

Weezer
far from the optimism of the English
classics, and above all Smith,
presupposing harmonic
reconciliation of private and public
interests using the "invisible hand"
free competition and from
unconditional condemnation
private egoism in
socialist and communist
literature. He emphasizes that private
property is inextricably linked with
economic activity. But private
property is unthinkable without those in power
relationships, dominance and submission.
Property and power are concentrated in
hands of economic leaders, in which
you can easily recognize the prototype of the “entrepreneur” figure
-- the main character of the famous theory
economic development of I. Schumpeter,
student of Wieser [see Schumpeter J. A. Theory
economic development. M.: Progress, 1982].

But
expansion of private capital, naturally,
takes capitalist domination beyond
limits of economic feasibility and
entails unwanted public
contradictions.

Even
from such a small passage the reader can
get an idea of ​​the balance and
the depth of Vieser's analysis not only
economic, but also social phenomena.

relevance

Is there any inconsistency in Menger’s reasoning about the order of goods? Maybe the point is not that goods of different orders satisfy some final need (for example, the need to eat), but that different goods satisfy fundamentally different, although interrelated, needs? The presence of flour, water, fire, etc. satisfies the need to bake bread, which arose as a result of the realization of the fact that bread can satisfy hunger. The reasoning for sowing wheat to grow crops and obtain flour is similar. Then the final conclusion should be to recognize an object (phenomenon) as good only if it is directly connected with the satisfaction of a need.

If you are under the popular impression that data-consuming economists are always preoccupied with complex formulas rather than external thinking, then you should take a look at the Austrian school. Like the monks who live in their monastery, economists of this school strive to solve complex economic problems by conducting “thought experiments.” The Austrian school believes that you can find out the truth simply by thinking out loud. Interestingly, this group has a unique understanding of some of the most important economic issues of our time. Read on to find out how the Austrian School of Economics developed and where the Austrian School or economic thought is located in the world.

Review of the Austrian School
What we know today as the Austrian school of economics was not achieved in a day. This school has gone through years of evolution in which the wisdom of one generation has been passed on to the next. Although the school has progressed and incorporated knowledge from outside sources, the basic principles remain the same.

Carl Menger, an Austrian economist who wrote The Principles of Economics in 1871, is considered by many to be the founder of the Austrian School. The title of Menger's book does not suggest anything extraordinary, but its content became one of the pillars of the marginalist revolution. Menger explained in his book that the economic values ​​of goods and services are subjective. That is: what is valuable to you cannot be valuable to your neighbor. Menger further explained that as the number of goods increases, their subjective value to an individual decreases. This valuable insight lies behind the concept of what is called diminishing marginal utility.

Later, Ludwig von Mises, another great thinker of the Austrian School, applied marginal utility theory to money in his book The Theory of Money and Credit (1912). The theory of diminishing marginal utility of money may actually help us answer one of the most basic questions in economics: how much money is too much? Here too the answer would be subjective. Another extra dollar in the hands of a billionaire would hardly matter, although the same dollar would be invaluable in the hands of a pauper.

Besides Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises, the Austrian school also includes such big names as Eugen Bohm-Bawerk, Friedrich Hayek and many others. Today's Austrian school is not just limited to Vienna, but its influence extends throughout the world.

Over the years, the basic principles of the Austrian School have provided valuable information on numerous economic problems, such as the laws of supply and demand, the causes of inflation, the theory of money creation, and exchange rates. On each of these issues, the views of the Austrian School tend to differ from other schools of economics.

Key Ideas and Key Differences

Below are some of the main ideas of the Austrian School and how they differ from other schools of economics:
Methodology

• The Austrian school uses the logic of a priori thinking - something that a person can think for himself without relying on the outside world - to figure out economic laws of universal application, while other general schools of economics, such as the neoclassical school, New Keynesians and others, use data and mathematics models to prove your point objectively. In this respect, the Austrian school can be more specifically contrasted with the German historical school, which rejects the universal application of any economic theorem.

  What determines the cost?

• The Austrian school argues that prices are determined by subjective factors, such as an individual's preference to buy or not purchase a particular good, while the classical school of economics believes that objective costs of production determine the price, and the neoclassical school believes that prices are determined by the equilibrium of supply and demand. The Austrian school rejects classical and neoclassical views, saying that production costs are also determined by subjective factors based on the value of alternative uses of scarce resources, and the equilibrium of supply and demand is also determined by subjective individual preferences.

  What determines interest rates?

• The Austrian School rejects the classical view of capital, which states that interest rates are determined by the supply and demand of capital. The Austrian School believes that interest rates are determined by the subjective decision of individuals to spend money now or in the future. In other words, interest rates are determined by the time preferences of borrowers and lenders.

  Why does inflation affect different people differently?

• The Austrian school believes that any increase in the money supply, which is not supported by an increase in the production of goods and services, leads to an increase in prices, but the prices of all goods do not rise at the same time. The prices of some goods may rise faster than others, leading to greater disparities in the relative prices of goods. For example, Peter the plumber may find that he earns the same money for his work, but he must pay Paul the baker more when buying the same loaf of bread. Changes in relative prices will make Paul rich at Peter's price. But why does this happen? If the prices of all goods and services increased at the same time, this would be very important. But the prices of those goods through which money is introduced into the system are adjusted to other prices; say, if the government injects money by buying corn, then the price of corn would increase before other goods are left behind due to price distortion.

  What Causes Business Cycles?

• The Austrian school believes that business cycles are caused by distortions in interest rates due to the government's attempt to control money. Capital under-allocation occurs when interest rates are kept artificially low or high by government intervention. Ultimately, the economy goes through a recession to restore natural progress.

  How do we create markets?

• The Austrian school views the market mechanism as a process rather than a result of design. People create markets by their intention to improve their lives, not by conscious decision. So, if you leave a bunch of amateurs on a deserted island, sooner or later their interactions will lead to the creation of a market mechanism.

The economic theory of the Austrian school is based on verbal logic, which provides relief from the technical mumbo jumbo of mainstream economics. There are significant differences between other schools, but by providing unique insight into some of the most complex economic issues, the Austrian school has earned a permanent place in the complex world of economic theory.

Austrian school economy - a theoretical direction of economic science that emphasizes the role of the self-organizing force of the market price mechanism.

Traditional economics uses mathematical models and statistical methods to model and evaluate economic behavior.

Austrian school economy Austrian SchoolEconomics

Another distinctive feature of the Austrian school is the emphasis on the individual entrepreneur, taken as the basic unit in economic analysis.

Most of the ideas of the Austrian school seem too radical, or at least cynical (perhaps this is why they have Stepan Demura among their supporters). They represent the antithesis of the Keynesian vision.

Austrian(Viennese) school Perhaps the most deserving of all areas of marginalism is the name “ school" It arose around the department of the University of Vienna, which was headed by Carl Menger for many years. The main representatives of the Austrian school, in addition to Menger, are his followers F. Wieser and E. Böhm-Bawerk.

• methodological individualism in the interpretation of economic events
• the theory that money is not neutral
• the theory that capital structure economy consists of heterogeneous (heterogeneous) goods that have polyspecific uses ( Austrian business cycle theory)
• limiting power of the pricing mechanism
• The principle of Laissez faire, which is translated from French. means the principle of non-interference by the state in the economy.

Traditional economics uses mathematical models and statistical methods to model and evaluate economic behavior.

Austrian school economy believes that mathematical models and statistics are imperfect, unreliable and insufficient. Instead of this Austrian SchoolEconomics uses logical conclusions from human behavior - a science called praxeology.

The main representatives of the Austrian school:
* first generation - Carl Menger (1840−1921) (founder)

* second generation - Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk (1851−1914), Friedrich von Wieser (1851−1926), Eugen von Philippovich von Philippsberg (1858−1917), Emil Sachs (1845−1927);

* third generation - Ludwig von Mises (1881−1973), Karl Schlesinger (1889−1938), H. Mayer (1879−1955), Richard von Striegl (1891−1942), Leo Illy (nee Sehnfeld) (1888−1952 ), Benjamin Anderson (1886−1949), Frank Fetter (1863−1949);

* fourth generation - Friedrich von Hayek (1899−1992), Oscar Morgenstern (1902−1977), Fritz Machlup (1902−1983), Paul Rosenstein-Rodan (1902−1985), Gottfried von Haberler (1900−1995), Henry Hazlitt (1894−1993), Friedrich Lutz (1901−1975), Felix Kaufmann (1895−1949), Alfred Schütz (1899−1959);

* fifth generation - Murray Rothbard (1926−1995), Israel Kirzner (born 1930), Ludwig Lachmann (1906−1990), George Shackle (1903−1992);

* sixth generation - Hans-Hermann Hoppe (born 1949), Jörg Guido Hülsmann (born 1966), Jesus Huerta de Soto (born 1956), Peter Boettke (born 1960), Chris Coyne , Steven Horwitz (born 1964), Peter T. Leeson, Frederic Sautet, Roger Garrison (born 1944), etc.

Sources:
Nouriel Roubini, Stephen Mime: “Nouriel Roubini: How I Predicted the Crisis”