When determining the characteristics of Utility and Good, Menger receives two items in one shell. It seems to me more familiar and corresponding to the sense of perception of these words their meaning:
A good is an object or relation 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 person, but at the same time, in their meaning, they act as good.

It is customary to consider the Law of Cause and Effect in sequence from cause to effect, and life shows that the effect is the search for a cause. If we take into account that human life itself is created and built from the microlevel and this happens to a certain extent spontaneously, then not everything will look unambiguously defined. The 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. She will always be found. If any event or state is taken as the Consequence, then everything that preceded it is a mass of conditions, circumstances and states, and so it is proposed as the Cause, then wouldn't such an approach be too "sweeping"?
The very process of interacting with the good or using it allows you to reveal and accept its usefulness. It is not the simultaneous occurrence of the conditions listed by Menger that allows the object to act as a good, but the process of using it causes the emergence of concomitant 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, the opposite is true: "Each process of transformation consists of emergence and development and is only thinkable in time."

If we take into account the nature of the establishment of the relationship between persons and goods, then it is possible to expand the above classification by introducing definitions of captured (power and organizational type) and legal goods.

I believe that it is completely senseless 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 difficulty. Of course, until some time it can be assumed that they include air, sometimes warm, like habitat and sunlight. It is possible to argue about the basic conditions for the existence of life and assert about the absence of the value of these benefits, if, only, do not take into account the will and work of the creator of this world. These are products of "another economy", to the level of understanding of which our consciousness has not risen. But the 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 is better not to talk about water and fruits in the same sense. This is one argument for decoupling the question of the relationship between the value of goods and their rarity.

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

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

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

Menger is looking for stable relationships between value and value, but these are categories of a completely different plan: value is a more psychological category, value is economic. There is only one connection here - everything, one way or another, is closed on the subject of these relations. He tries to deduce and show the relationship between value and price, but these are just similar words, moreover, 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, followed by specialization in this deviation. In the future, however, the vital activity of the subjects of economic relations was planned and carried out on the basis of the intention to obtain material rights on the basis of specialization on deviation.

It should not be overlooked that the basis of economic interaction is not just exchange, but a set of acts of purchase and sale, presented on the market separately. Always in each of these acts, on the one hand, substantive rights appear.

The use of the category "Usefulness" to find grounds for economic interaction does not seem to make any sense to me. This is a subjective economic characteristic. Value and utility are manifested in economic interaction not directly, but as figurative foundations of demand and as one of the engines of socio-economic progress.

Price is just a declaration of the amount of value. Derive from declarations economic laws hard enough. For some designation of the procedure and environment for setting prices, one could proceed from several influencing circumstances:
1 - Prices are set and exist only in the economic environment;
2 - Prices are set by the subjects of the relationship;
3 - The understanding of the position of the subject in relation to setting the price is carried out by a person .. (Example of this chapter)
4 -Pricing is one of the manifestations of economic freedom;
5 - Price setting acts as an intention to create value.

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

As a matter of fact, I will not object to the remark. I will only note that no matter how the terms “value” and “value” relate to each other for an economic good, none of these characteristics is objectively specified, i.e. regardless of the evaluating subject.
Many authors have already criticized the objective (including labor) theory of value and came to a subjective theory. The later (and one of the best) exposition can be found in Mises' Human Action.

> Price is just a declaration of the amount of value.
Prices are the ratios of the values ​​of economic goods, expressed in money, at which really there is an exchange of these benefits. Whether they are declarative or not (I do not understand what this means) - the exchange is taking place, which means that 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.

> Price setting acts as an intention to create value.
Pointless delirium.

> substantive rights
And I, naive, for some reason have always been convinced that rights are intangible by definition ...

> lies not just an exchange, but a set of acts
> purchases and sales presented on the market separately
... which economists call exchange in general sense this word
The expression "there is an exchange in the market" means that a certain number of "acts of purchase and sale, presented on the market separately", take place.

The market is not an exchange, but an exchange. Super objection by God!

Menger really has a rather vague definition of the ratio of the usefulness of the good and the good itself. Therefore, misunderstandings are possible here.

I would advise starting the study of the foundations of subjectivist theory with a different interpretation - with Mises's work "Human Activity" - there, in principle, the same thing, but much less room for confusion in the head. And judging by your subsequent comments, there is confusion and it is quite serious.

Incidentally, when presenting the doctrine of economic good, Mises does not refer to the term "utility" at all.

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




A commodity is a (tangible) value carrier intended for sale.
We can say that the initial moment 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. Not the other way around, as is often thought.

I really like the trick with replacing the history of money with the history of the monetary device, which for some reason is usually called monetary circulation. The whole history of money consists of the facts of their creation (production) and use. Money always has a complete cycle: production - use. Therefore, one can speak of money circulation only as a non-existent phenomenon .. But on the other hand, you can always say something about the circulation of money carriers - about their transfer from account to account or from pocket to pocket together with the emergence and use of money. What is passed off as the history of monetary circulation is obviously the history of the monetary system.

I think that such a widespread fairy tale "about the white bull" is not able to explain the nature of the origin of money. "Goby" gave value to the bearer of money, not money. When moving "Goby" could gain weight and lose weight. And it does not matter at all whether he acted in this case either in the role of cattle, or in the role precious metal... Never and not a single commodity, regardless of its value, was money, but, of course, some of them were carriers of money.

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

Sergey, hello!
Personally, you can write off all that has been said on 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 foundation of political economy. To me, these foundations appear as a parachute of political economy, which began to take shape in flight. It is already impossible not to notice this. I must also say that I attach due importance to this work and the role of the author in highlighting the issue.
Actually, what did I say? It may be that a certain sheet in political economy is clean again.

Speaking of Ludwig von Mises, here are his words:
"The struggle for freedom is ultimately not resistance to despots or oligarchs, but resistance to despotism of public opinion. It is not a struggle of many against a few, but a struggle of a minority - sometimes a minority consisting of one person - against the majority."

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

The words are simple, but the thought is wonderful. It's Mises! ("Theory and History")

Start
70s of the XIX century. in the history of the world
economic thought was marked by
called the marginalist revolution. IN
there is a large proportion of such dating
conventions; for example, guidelines
marginal utility theories were
formulated by G.G. Gossen for a long time
all forgotten work of 1844, and the beginning
massive penetration
marginalist ideas into economic
literature should only be attributed to
mid-1880s. Proceeded differently
marginalist revolution in different countries.
But the fact remains: publications in 1871.
"Theories of Political Economy" by W. St.
Jevons and The Foundations of the Political
economy "K. Menger, and in 1874" Elements
pure political economy "L.
Walras laid new foundations for the western
economic theory, on which it has since
since then and is developing. Relevance
the book offered to the reader is,
therefore, in the fact that for the first time he [nor
one of the works of the founders
marginalism (L. Walras, W. St. Jevons, K.
Menger) was not published in the USSR. From works,
published in this collection, were published
only "Fundamentals of the theory of value
economic benefits "E. Boehm-Bawerk (1929)]
the opportunity is given to get acquainted with
one of the origins of modern Western
economic thought - by the Austrian school
political economy.

IN
within 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 of W. Art. Jevons and A. Marshall, as well as
give an individual characterization
to each of its three founders,
presented by their works in this
book. But first, apparently, I must say
a few words about the marginalist revolution
generally. That three people (Jevons,
Menger and Walras), working independently
from a friend and relying on completely different
national scientific traditions - and in the 19th century.
national peculiarities of English,
German and French political
savings were very bright [I. G. Blumin.
Subjective school in political economy.
T. I. M .: Publishing house Kom. Academy, 1931], - came to
very close conclusions, it could not be
coincidence. Revolution as we are
we know, gives rise to a revolutionary situation.
What was the pre-marginalist
the situation in Western economic theory, and
more precisely in the theory of value (value), since
the revolution took place here?

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

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

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

So
Thus, in the classical model, the average
price level (natural value)
is determined in the field of production and
given by costs. Offer of the same product
is determined by the demand arising at
given the price.

Such is
objective production theory
cost in the most compressed form. Should
note that on the European continent this
the theory existed in a slightly different form.
On the one hand, the tradition was strong there,
going back to Galiani and Condillac and
connecting the value of a thing with its utility.
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"
(Wert), correlated it with other human
values, etc. However, the theory of value on
continent usually included those described by J.
S. Mill "laws", although this is how
rule led to contradictions [Example
can serve as the famous "Tutorial
political economy "A. Wagner (Wagner A.,
Nasse A. Lehrbuch der Politischen Okonomie. 2. Aufl. Leipzig, 1875)]. But from
flaws was not free herself
classical theory in her millew
option. First, for anyone, even the most
highly developed and wealthy society (and for
him in particular) the possibility
unlimited increase in production, from
which the "theory of costs" is based on,
is the exception rather than the rule.
Secondly, the objective theory interpreted
demand for a product as a "black box". Then
little has been said about defining
its factors, it boiled down to a banal
logical circle: demand affects prices, and
prices affect demand. Third, dualism
classical theory of value (completely
different explanations for freely
of reproducible and non-reproducible goods)
haunted scientists seeking to create
a coherent and comprehensive theory,
revealing the essence of value (value).
(Namely, such goals were set before any
science in those pre-positivist times.) ["We
we need just such a theory that all
value phenomena would be derived from one and
the same beginning, and, moreover, would give them
an exhaustive explanation, "wrote Boehm-Bawerk].

Everything
these weaknesses drew criticism from the classic
theory from a variety of positions. If a
German history school criticized her
overly 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.

The third
the path was chosen by the marginalists. They tried
create a monistic general theory
values ​​based on prerequisites, absolutely
contrary to the premises of the classical
schools.

IN
as an initial elementary phenomenon
economic life they chose the attitude
person to thing, manifested in the field
personal consumption [classical school is not
included personal consumption in the item
political economy, since the influence
habits, traditions, prejudices and other
manifestations of irrationality prevail
here over the impact of competition and
economic calculation and makes
human behavior in a given area
unpredictable. Therefore, to
create a theory of value based on
the attitude of a person to a thing, marginalists
it took this attitude
rational. Man in the ultimate theory
usefulness knows the hierarchy of its
needs and, satisfying them, seeks
to achieve the greatest
welfare]. As K. Menger wrote, "a person
with their needs and their power over
means of satisfying the latter
makes up the starting and ending point
any human economy "(p. 89).
From this relationship between needs and
means of satisfaction, or, speaking
more familiar language, between usefulness and
a rarity, marginalists just withdraw
the phenomenon of the value of economic benefits.

Armed
knowledge of the subjective value of goods,
economic actors start up if they
it is profitable, exchange or even production.
And if for a classical school
the essence of the 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 participants is the best
satisfaction of their needs - direct
or mediated.

So
thus, marginalists are radically
reformed the cost problem:
black box content (consumer
estimates and consumer choice) has become
the main subject of analysis, and causal
links between production, exchange and
consumption changed their direction to
the opposite - the basis of value was not
past costs, and future utility, etc.

Of course
perceived motivation by marginalists
any economic activity - maximum satisfaction
individual needs - looks
extreme anachronism in a developed
capitalism of the late 19th century. However, from our point
view, this premise, taken by itself,
no more artificial than the postulate
classical (and Marxist) theory
cost about limitless possibilities
expansion of production. How fair
emphasizes Yu. B. Kochevrin, "the fruitfulness
abstraction should be determined not from
the absence of certain realities in it, not by
this or that psychological or
behavioral assumptions, and from the explanation
real economic process or his
essential side "[Kochevrin Yu. B.
Neoclassical theory of production and
distribution // World economy and
international relationships. 1987. "10. S. 45].
The question of the applicability of the classical and
marginalist abstractions to various
areas of modern pricing,
certainly deserves a separate
conversation and goes beyond the scope of this
introduction.

Long
time the Austrian school was considered in
Western economic literature only as
one of the driving forces of marginalist
revolution that has reached smaller
success than the rest, since not
owned a mathematical apparatus. Such
the assessment was formed in the mid-30s of the XX century,
when different directions of marginalism,
seemed to merge forever into a single
neoclassical flow and, moreover, were
relegated to the background as a result
the next revolution in economics -
Keynesian. But in the early 70s during
weakening Keynesianism and revival
keen interest in microeconomic
analysis revealed that the Mohicans
Austrian school L. Mises and F. Hayek (last
received in 1974 Nobel Prize) carried
over the years, some of the most important
features of the Austrian school that did not give it
merge completely with neoclassical
paradigm.

So
way, compared with Lausanne and
Cambridge (Anglo-American) schools
marginalism, the Austrian school turned out to be
most clearly defined and durable.
It is possible with a great degree of confidence
name well-known economists,
belonging to different generations
Austrian schools, including our
contemporaries. This is its founder K.
Menger, his students E. Boehm-Bawerk and F. Wieser (although
listen to K. Menger's lectures in Vienna
University they did not have a chance, both graduated
him shortly before the author of "Foundations
political economy "got 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 and others.

Strong
influenced by various ideas of the Austrian school
had on the British L. Robbins, J. Hicks and
J. Shackle, Swede K. Wicksell, Dutch
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
schools of political economy? First of all it is
consistent monistic
subjectivity: all categories of economic
sciences Austrians strive to derive only

from attitude to things economic
subject, his preferences, expectations,
knowledge. As insistently emphasizes
Menger, any good by itself, from a point
economist's view, are deprived of any
objective properties, and above all
values. These properties are given to them only
appropriate attitude of one or another
subject.

So,
the essence of interest is different
the subject's assessment of present and future benefits,
production costs - in lost profit,
which is expected to be productive
benefits could bring if there were
not used as in reality, but
otherwise, etc. In this case, the subject of the Austrians
not guaranteed against errors (he may, by
for example, misjudge your future
needs and means of meeting them),
and these mistakes will not be "discarded"
market, but will play a role by participating
along with more correct estimates, in
determining the price of this good.

Special
the emphasis that the Austrians put on
uncertainties of the future and opportunities
mistakes, the great importance attached to them,
especially Menger, knowledge of the economic
subject at his disposal
information, sharply distinguish them from the background
other marginalists and make their theories
especially important these days when the problem
search and processing of information is located on
foreground of economic research.

Can
boldly assert that the degree
rationality required from
economic entity located in
theories of the Austrians are an order of magnitude lower than in
models of Jevons and Walras. it
manifests itself, in particular, in another
features of the Austrian school, namely in
the fact that the 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 leafs through
this book - you will not find in it not only
differential equations, but also the usual
supply and demand curves.
Of course, this can also be explained by the fact that
founders of the Austrian school,
law graduates simply
did not know the technique of mathematical
analysis [although the same K. Menger, if desired
could well have acquired 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 accept some
additional assumptions. Firstly,
the valued good must be infinite
divisible, or, equivalently, the 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
ultimate [See an interesting article from my son
Menger - Karl Menger Jr., mathematician
by profession: Menger K. Austrian marginalism and mathematical
economics. In: Carl Menger and the Austrian School ... P. 38-44].

Everything
three additional conditions are introduced for
convenience of calculation and narrow the range of phenomena,
explained by marginal theory. what
as for infinite divisibility, it is
the 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 their
aggregate, and not to one subject (for example,
to residents of Liverpool or Manchester). But
lose their meaning for the aggregate of consumers

subjective ratings and preferences! Besides
addition, the mathematical version of the theory
marginal utility assumes that
business entity unmistakably finds
the best option for yourself that
contradicts the above provisions
Austrians (especially Menger) about
uncertainties and errors. Insofar as
Austrians avoid
mathematical analysis, it allows them
not only cover more
a wide range of phenomena, but also keep it
consistency and stay within
slightly more realistic model
human behavior [according to the exact
E. Streisler's remark, for the Austrian
schools (as opposed to mathematics) in
the phrase "marginal utility"
more important noun than adjective
(Streissler E. That 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
traits of the Austrian school - methodological individualism. Everything
economic problems Austrians
consider and decide at the micro level, at
the level of the individual. They do not take into account that the whole,
that is, society is always more than the sum of its
parts, do not recognize specific
macroeconomic phenomena irreducible
to a simple resultant of individual
preferences and decisions. From our point
view, this is due to the desire
Austrians to reveal the essence of phenomena,
causal relationships and their
distrust of functional dependencies [cf.
the very first phrase that Menger begins
their "Foundations ..." (p. 38). To that
it should be added that the German term
"Grenznutzen" can be more accurately translated as "boundary"
utility, i.e., an assessment of the value of a thing
a buyer at the "border"
between those who manage to acquire the thing, and
those who will be ousted from the market; no
a hint of a "limit" in mathematical
sense of the word is not here]. In this sense
Austrians are closer to K. Marx than to
most economists-mathematicians,
who adhered to positivist
views.

IN
links with methodological individualism
there is also a notable absence in
works of Austrian marginalists
developed ideas of balance. It is clear that
Walrasian general equilibrium concept
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 concept of partial
equilibrium, the only equilibrium price.

An important
role in Austrian theory is played by the factor
time. Least of all other marginalists
the Austrians deserve a reproach for the clean
static point of view. They didn't forget
emphasize that value judgments
people directly depend on
what time period can they calculate
satisfaction of their needs ("period
prudence "). It is the factor
time and associated uncertainty
lead to errors of exchange participants and not
allow the general equilibrium to be established,
inherent in the timeless Walras system,
where all prices and quantities of goods are determined
at the same time.

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 important positions in
Austrian state (Böhm-Bawerk three times
was Minister of Finance, Chairman
The 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 tied by friends, and Böhm-Bawerka
and Wieser - even a family relationship.

IN
the fields of economic theory are all too,
certainly were close ideological
associates. However, history intended
each of them has its own role, and it is 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
indisputable scientific authority - Karl
Menger (1840-1921). When, being little known
young (31 years old) civil servants and
journalist, he decided to become an assistant professor
University of Vienna and as
recommendations just presented
published book "Foundations of political
saving ", of course, no one could have thought
that this work 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:
relying mainly on German literature,
he was nevertheless not familiar with the compositions
Gossen and Thünen, in which the ideas of the ultimate
usefulness and marginal
performance found their most
early incarnation. At the same time, almost
it is impossible to find any idea or
the concept of Boehm-Bawerk, Wieser and their
followers who were not anticipated
separate provisions and even footnotes from the "Foundations
political economy. "
speaking, everything that was said above about
characteristic features of the Austrian
schools in general, primarily and in
most related to a masterpiece
Menger. It is all the more surprising that this
the book had a very difficult fate. The first
the publication went almost unnoticed [if,
certainly not to consider such attentive
readers like Boehm-Bawerk, Wieser and Marshall!].
The second edition of "Foundations ..." is out
only in 1923, after the death of the author, when
the main ideas of the Austrian school have already become
widely known in more accessible
interpretations of Böhm-Bawerk and Wieser. On the
the international language of economists is English
- the book was only translated
80 years after writing.

IN
the result for almost a century after
publication of "Foundations ..." Menger
remained revered rather than read
by the author. Rebirth of widespread interest
economists since the 70s of the XX century. to ideas
Menger, we owe F. Hayek, who did not
only gave many of them further
development, but also did an enormous amount for
their propaganda and memorialization
founder of the Austrian school.

Evgeny
(correctly Eugen) von Boehm-Bawerk (1851-1914)
played in the history of the Austrian school different
role. Unlike Menger, he was in the first
turn of the statesman of the highest
rank (the list of his positions is given above),
giving the remaining free time
teaching. As for the deep and
unhurried 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 he published his dissertation
"Rights and relationships in terms of learning
on national economic benefits "; in 1884 - the first part of the main work" Capital and
profit "criticized
previous theories of capital and
percent; in 1886 - published in our
collection of work "Fundamentals of the theory of value
economic benefits "; in 1889 - the second part
"Capital and Profit" - "Positive
theory of capital "; in 1890 - the book" K
completion of the Marxist system ", in
which Böhm-Bawerk was one of the first
criticized Marx's theory of value, citing
on the contradiction between volumes I and III of "Capital".
The pace taken by Boehm-Bawerk during these years
impressive, but he undoubtedly should have
bad for depth, thoughtfulness and
completeness of his works. Not
by accident it was Boehm-Bawerk, not Menger
was (and still is) the main
the target of criticism of the Austrian school as a whole.
But inadequate finishing of their own
theoretical research (especially tangible
in "Capital and Profit") did not prevent Böhm-Bawerk
perform another important function:
an eloquent propagandist of ideas
Austrian school (primarily Menger),
as well as skillful and temperamental
a polemicist defending them in the fight against
competing theories. It is in this
Boehm-Bawerk acquired a wide
fame in the scientific world (it is no coincidence that
in our literature, starting with the "Political
savings rentier "N. I. Bukharin, it was he
proclaimed the head of the Austrian school [see.
See also: Encyclopedia of Economics.
Political Economy. T. 1.M .: Soviet
encyclopedia, 1972. S. 152]). Selected for
publications in our collection work
allows the reader to compose the most
a complete picture of Böhm-Bawerk as
popularizer and polemicist [the most
significant research by Böhm-Bawerk in
areas of theory ("Capital and Profit")
currently preparing for release in
one of the publishers]. Boehm-Bawerk was
a lawyer not only by education, but also by
mentality and style of presentation. It
strove for clarity, persuasiveness and
clarity of argumentation and was not inclined
to careful and comprehensive deliberation
every definition in the spirit of Menger, who
brought laconicism and elegance of style to
sacrifice to the precision of meaning. This distinction is good
transmitted in Russian translation. Reader,
who wants to compose the initial
idea of ​​the main ideas
Austrian school, can, in principle, start
precisely from the work of Böhm-Bawerk.

The third
from the authors presented in our collection
is Baron Friedrich von Wieser (1851-1926). It
more than two of his colleagues contributed
the design of the Austrian school in
school - being the most capable of them
teacher, he devoted 42 years of his life
presentation of 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
systematized textbook
Austrian school - "Theory
public economy "(1914). Contribution
Wieser into Austrian theory is very
peculiar. First, he became famous for
which gave bright names and memorable
formulating many ideas of marginalism.
It was he who first used the terms "limiting
utility "(Grenznutzen)," imputation "
(Zurechnung), "Gossen's laws".

Secondly,
it was Wieser who was the first to succeed [in the works
"On the origin and basic laws
economic value "(1884) and" Natural
value "(1889)] to formulate the principle
lost profits giving purely
subjective explanation of costs, and
develop the theory in the most detail
imputation inferring value
productive goods from the value of their
a consumable product, and for the first time
formulate a central principle
equality of marginal products,
produced by this productive
good in all its applications [as B.
Seligman, Wieser's task was
spreading Menger's ideas to spheres
production and distribution. (Seligman B.
The main currents of modern
economic thought. M .: Progress, 1968. S. 168)].

Thirdly,
from the early representatives of the Austrian school
only Wieser tried to connect ideas
marginal utility with possibilities
the most appropriate organization
society as a whole. Wieser can be called
least "analytical" and most
prone to synthesis, descriptive and
sociological approach by
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 a Western
economic theory) in order to
translate the principles of marginal utility into
life and ensure optimal
the functioning of the economy (its youthful
adherence 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 a more detailed description
published in the collection of works.

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

Mentioned
the above is the "revered-unreadable" paradox
this book, in our opinion, is not accidental, his
the reasons are rooted in some peculiarities
Menger work, for which you want
draw the attention of the reader.

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

Besides
addition, faced with misunderstanding and
the hostile reaction of German economists,
who at that time were under strong
influence of anti-theoretical
the new history school and its head Schmoller,
Menger was forced to join him in
single combat on the methodological front.
His second major work "Research
on the method of social sciences and political
savings in particular "(1833) not only
contained controversy with the inductive
methodology of the historical school, but also
disclosed 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
the laws of theory are difficult to recognize due to
influence of non-economic motives]. Unfolded thereafter
fierce controversy with Schmoller,
entered the history of economic science as
"method dispute" [cf. 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. No. 3. P. 3-16)], Menger gave enough
a lot of strength to write
the alleged treatise.

Everything
the above does not allow
Menger's "grounds ..."
which a complete
theoretical system, for example
criticize them for a very narrow circle
raised issues: values, prices,
the origin and essence of money. Moreover,
the style itself is important, in which
written "Foundations ...". Trying
outline the most general foundations of your
theory, Menger studiously avoids
excessive detail and categoricality,
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 to research
interest, wages, rent, credit and
paper money; the third part is "applied"
industrial production theory and
trade; fourth - criticism of modern
his economic system and suggestions
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 that 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 led to
what is against Menger's "Foundations ..."
impossible to nominate a majority
critical arguments that are usually
speak out against his "inconsistent
followers "- Böhm-Bawerk and Wieser. Not
accidentally building a new Austrian theory
Mises, Hayek and others built chiefly
image on Menger's foundation,
abandoning many concepts of it
students. We will now make a short
a journey through the Foundations of Political
savings ", dwelling 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 arguments, then it
stated by the author so clearly and clearly
which, in our opinion, does not need special
comments.

"Foundations ..."
consist of three large sections. The first of
them (chapters one through three) are devoted to
the cornerstone of Austrian theory is the doctrine of subjective value. But
wondering what the third chapter, where,
in fact, contains the theory of value,
the author prefaces two preparatory
chapters (about 1/4 of the entire book!) devoted to
the doctrine of benefits in general, and economic
benefits in particular. In defining the first
Menger stresses the importance of cognition
man of their useful properties.
A feature of the latter is their
rare, but curious that Menger avoids
pronounce this term because
economic benefits are not made by absolute
rarity, and the excess of the planned
need for a good or "necessary
quantity "(specifically Menger's
quantitative category
a certain need of the individual for
some foreseeable period) over
the amount of this good, which, as
the individual expects, will be available to him. So,
already in the first definitions one can see
Menger's general style of research: the rejection of
the use of short but ambiguous
terms, the desire to give as much
adequate, albeit verbose, presentation
thoughts. Some of the most famous ideas
the first section concerns the division of all goods
for the benefits of higher and lower orders, as well as
the principle of complementarity (additionality)
productive goods. Consistently
climbing up the river of time from its
starting point - satisfaction
needs, Menger first explained
value of productive goods by value
produced with their help consumer
blessings, and not vice versa, as was the case with the authors,
attributing value to costs
production. For Menger, costs are only valuable
in the event that with their help it will be
a valuable product has been produced.
Recall, by the way, that the same problem
consumer appraisal of the
costs through product value - socially necessary costs
- saw and
K. Marx tried to solve in the III volume 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 extremely
similar conclusions!) Principle
complementarity enriches the picture
new colors: it turns out that
productive goods may be devalued
and even stop being good if
at least one necessary "component" is missing
element from that set of productive
goods that are necessary for a certain
production process (conclusion,
unthinkable for cost theory). Development of
Menger problems of complementarity, and
also (later) changing proportions, in
which can connect
production goods, testifies to
the fact that the founder of the Austrian school
much deeper Jevons and Walras reflected
in its theory, the sphere of production and,
therefore, his theory is in no way
earned the title of "political economy
rentier "for which" production,
labor expended in obtaining
material goods, lies out of sight "
[Bukharin NI The political economy of the rentier.
M .: Orbita, 1988. S. 19-20].

Draws
attention to yourself "4 of the first chapter, entirely
dedicated to the significance of the time factor and
the uncertainty it generates for
economic activities of people.
Focused in this paragraph as well as
the statements scattered in the book are not
leave doubt that the approach
Menger to the economy cannot be called
static and timeless (as opposed to
approach of Jevons or Walras). If
Menger's conceived treatise was written, we
most likely would have received a non-static
equilibrium model, and the theory of economic
activity as a process taking place during
time and space.

In
the second chapter we want to draw attention to
reader for a vivid example of Menger's
methodological monism: from
relative rarity of goods (see explanation
above) Menger deduced human selfishness, and
also a property phenomenon! (see pp. 78, 82).
The analysis of the transfer of goods from
economic to non-economic, and
vice versa (pp. 82-87). Here, as in some
subsequent places, there is a tendency
Menger to Historical Research
economic institutions. Really,
uncompromising fight against "vices
historicism ", the absolutization of descriptive
and inductive methods did not exclude any
Menger, nor his followers
respect for economic
stories (about this can, in particular,
testify to the dedication of the "Foundations ..."
W. Rocher - the head of the German historical
schools). This also distinguishes the Austrian
school from other areas of marginalism (for
excluding Marshall).

Chapter
the third is central in the whole book, it
contains the theory of subjective value. IN
contrast to other Menger marginalists
determined the value of goods not by quantity
the benefits they bring, and by the importance
the needs they meet. It,
seemingly insignificant difference on
actually plays an important role. It
indicates that Menger: 1)
develops a theory that later
received the name of the ordinal version
marginalism: the need for every good is not
has an absolute value, and is expressed
only in comparison with the usefulness of the other
goods (the numbers in his tables are conditional
character and express not magnitude, but hierarchy
needs - see note. on p. 156); 2) not
connects, unlike Jevons, his theory
hedonistic values
nature of man, ascending to Bentham (for
this is for the marginalists applying for
explanation of "psychology"
business entity, badly got
from contemporaries psychologists [See. in more detail:
Avtonomov V.S. The search for new ways // Origins.
1990. "2. S. 187-188]). I must say that Menger
I did not use it at all when building my
theory of the term "utility".

Along the way
Menger solves the long-existing
economic theory paradox: the most
good for human life
are not always the most
valuable. He does this by noting that
value is given 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) that does not exist outside
people (recall that for supporters
objective theories, including Marx,
"values" or "costs" are often
used as a synonym for goods
regardless of the availability of needing them
subject).

Outlining
its formulation of the principles of diminishing
the importance of the benefits 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 other hand, is decisive.

Most
Menger's argument looks tense,
consistently 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 passes
abstract as a motive for accumulation
capital, and from specifically
entrepreneurial motives,
investigated later by I. Schumpeter in "Theory
economic development "[Schumpeter J.
The theory of economic development. M .:
Progress, 1982. S. 193].

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

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

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

Second
the "Foundations ..." section includes chapters
fourth and fifth. Its content is a transition
from subjective value to price, i.e. to
exchange proportion of goods. The relationship between
the second and first sections is the relation
phenomena to the entity ["Prices are the only
sensuously perceived elements of everything
process ... "(p. 163)]. Menger
consistently displays prices from
individual, subjective values, but
takes into account the objective influence
environments - different types of exchange. First step,
which Menger requires him
subjectivist approach - refusal
prerequisites for equivalent exchange. After all
this premise assumes equality
benefits for some objective inherent in them
the indicator itself. Menger takes this step
declaring that the exchange cannot be
equivalent because it is always beneficial
to both of its participants: after him, their
needs are better satisfied,
than before him (pp. 150-151). Note that this conclusion
absolutely inevitably follows from the chosen
the author of the initial premises:
meet needs like
the only motive of any economic
activities. (In Marx's Capital in
exchange analysis is implicitly laid down
the prerequisite for the existence of capital and
the dominant role of the motive of accumulation
capital that breaks out into
Chapter 4 of Volume I. One for all capitalists
accumulation motive by its very nature
assumes the commensurability of goods. Have
Menger's benefits are objectively incommensurable:
how many people, so many values
given amount of goods.)

Act
this premise manifests itself in
determining the boundaries of exchange: if further
sharing will stop improving satisfaction
the needs of its participants, he
will stop (see pp. 155-156). (For comparison: y
Marx's border of exchange are the borders
production, and not vice versa, and the latter in
turn set only by the possibility
continuation and acceleration of the process
accumulation, the very motive of accumulation by
nature is limitless. As for
possibilities of accumulation, then they are given
effective demand, and
the only factor affecting
the last one is income.)
notice that the needs-based approach
completely rehabilitates such an important area
economic activity like trade.
The classics and Marxists are known to
denied the productive nature of labor in
this industry, leaving behind him only
redistribution of the produced.
Some provisions read today as
a burning argument in defense of trade
intermediaries relevant to our current
parliamentary debates.

I want to
also note two modest, but not
by value, fragment. The first is about "economic
victims who require exchange operations "
(p. 161). Here, if you wish, you can see
the beginnings of the concept of "transactional
costs ", playing in modern
western neo-institutionalist
literature the outstanding role [Kapelyushnikov R.
I. Economic theory of property rights.
M .: IMEMO, 1990. S. 28-37]. The other is the first in
theoretical economic literature
distinction between bid prices and prices
proposals (20 years before Marshall) that,
undoubtedly it was suggested to Menger his
the practice of the stock exchange observer.

The main
part of chapter five is devoted to education
prices in different conditions - at
isolated exchange, seller monopoly and
competition of buyers and, finally, with
bilateral competition. Draws on itself
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
proceeded from the existence of real
capitalist giant monopolies
late XIX - early XX century. This
the sequence is dictated to the author: 1)
the research methodology chosen by him - from
the simplest cases to more and more complex ones; 2)
a tendency to historical parallels (a
historically relatively free
competition is definitely
late product
commodity exchange) (see pp. 183-184) and 3) the same
pervasive subjectivism: the simplest
for Menger is the case when we have
dealing with the value judgments of one
a buyer and one seller; more difficult if
several buyers participate in the exchange;
even more difficult if sellers too
somewhat, because the theorist needs
"get into the soul" of each of the participants
exchange and ferret out his subjective
preferences. I wonder what the price
determined by Menger in both monopoly and
competitive situation the same laws
subjective value, but these laws
manifest themselves under monopoly and under
competition in completely different
the seller's policy: when competing
it is unprofitable to hold the goods and resort to
price discrimination of buyers.
Menger's theory of price from all others
options for marginalism
the absence of a concept in it is unambiguous
determined equilibrium price: market
Menger's price can fluctuate between
estimates of the unit of the good the least strong of
competitors who entered the exchange and the most
the strong one who never did it
do (pp. 175-176). The more competitors, the
there is already room for price fluctuations, but all
equal to some part of the price in each case
is not explained by the factor of subjective
values, but the ability to bargain.

Important
mediating link in the transition from
the original abstraction of the individual
economy aimed at direct
consumption, to a developed exchange
economy characteristic of
capitalist economy, is
Menger's doctrine of consumption and exchange
the value of the good. Both are purely for him
subjective values ​​(exchange value
goods are the value of other goods that
can be obtained in exchange for it). If the exchange
the value of a person's good
more consumer, exchange can
happen if the opposite is not true. Ratio
the same use and exchange value
is determined by the amount of good,
at the disposal of this person.
Thus, for large owners,
for example manufacturers, predominant, or
"economic", as Menger put it,
invariably there should be an exchange, and not
the use value of the
goods. So, Menger corrects the adopted
them for the prevailing consumer motive
economic activity, without violating the
the same time of their initial premises.

Finally,
the last section of the book (chapters seven and
eighth) is devoted to the essence of money and their
origin. These questions are always
worried Menger as in theory (among his
few works included two
articles (1892 and 1900) about money for the "Handbook
on state sciences ", and for
of the second edition of the handbook, the article was
completely revised), and in practice
(in the same 1892 Menger was part of the Imperial
commission on monetary reform and played in it
the main role). Menger's Approach to Essence
money is also peculiar - he takes her out of
different "sales ability of goods"
(Absatzfahigkeit). Here we are dealing with purely
Menger category, which can
it would be most accurate to translate into
modern language as "liquidity".
Menger is referring to the ability of a commodity
always find a sale in any quantity, in
as a last resort with a small loss in value (p.
213). The most liquid product becomes
money.

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

Work
E. Boehm-Bawerka "Fundamentals of the theory of value
economic benefits "was for the first time
published in 1886 in a German journal
"Conrads Jahrbucher fur Nationalokonomie und Statistik". it
first appeal from a representative
Austrian school directly to
German readers (remember what exactly in
this time the "method dispute" raged,
which ended with "organizational conclusions" - the supporters of the Austrian school were
it is forbidden to occupy professorial departments in
Germany). In this work, as noted
Soviet researcher I. G. Blyumin, "Böhm-Bawerk
gave it to the utmost clarity
exposition of the theory of value of the Austrians ...
with good reason the "Austrians" could
say: "Die, but it's better not Böhm-Bawerk
what about the theory of marginal utility ""
[Böhm-Bawerk E. Foundations of the theory of value
economic benefits. M.-L. 1929. S. IV].

To
avoid repetitions, we'll stop here
only at those moments where Boehm-Bawerk introduces
something new compared to Menger's theory.

FROM
the first pages are clearly visible
the desire of Böhm-Bawerk to bring more
strong bridges between the theory of subjective
Menger-Wieser values ​​and objective
price proportions, adding up to
market. For this, Böhm-Bawerk calls
exchange value is an objective value,
inherent in the material goods themselves (p. 249).
Recall that Menger did not consider the exchange
value is an objective property of the goods themselves:
in his interpretation, exchange value is
the subjective value of the goods that can be
get in return for the existing one. Hard
separation of subjective and objective
values ​​will affect Böhm-Bawerk and
later. It is enough to point out the structure
a book in which the author distinguishes two parts:
subjective value theory and theory
objective exchange value.

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

this good.

Own
Boehm-Bawerk's contribution is his attempt
find a quantitative relationship between
the total value of these goods and the marginal
usefulness (pp. 286-287). Boehm-Bawerk believes that
marginal utilities of individual units
this good have the property
additivity, but not multiplicativity.
The marginal utility of units of a given
stock (of the same quality) in case
summation will not be the same, since
they are meant to satisfy
needs of different importance. (Happening,
when the goods are originally intended for
sales, Böhm-Bawerk considers separately
and multiplicativity is allowed there.)
It should be noted that the forward-looking
Menger bypassed this problem altogether.
He examines the concepts of wealth and property
before determining the value of goods and not
returns to them afterwards. Wherein
Menger insisted on relative, not on
the absolute nature of the value and not
assumed the possibility of measuring it in
any units. Boehm-Bawerk is trying
quantify the total value,
is forced to proceed without due reason from
measurability of value, i.e. go to
more vulnerable to criticism of the cardinalist
version of marginalism [deep criticism
Boehm-Bawerk's teachings on measurability
cost 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 stated in chapter three,
where Boehm-Bawerk asks himself the question: "We can
whether we determine the magnitude of this difference (between
sensations), more precisely, can we express it in
figures? "(p. 303) and gives him
yes answer.

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

Trying
bring the theory of subjective value closer to
conditions of "developed exchange relations",
Boehm-Bawerk invites for explanation
individual difficult cases concept
substitutional marginal benefit. Author
comes to the conclusion that the value for
man's lost winter coat in
in most cases it is not measured
marginal utility, and marginal
the usefulness of other benefits that will have
not buy or sell to buy
coat in return for the lost one. She is in her
the queue depends on the price of the coat on the market (what
it is more expensive, the greater the loss of other goods).
So ultimately
subjective value of a given product
is determined by its own price. This logical
the circle has long been
primary target for Marxist critics
Austrian theory (starting with Hilferding
and Bukharin). To Menger, the same criticism
is inapplicable, since it has the value of goods
determined only by intensity
needs and the presence of good and in no way
depends on the price.

Then
the same can be said about Boehm-Bawerk's addiction
values ​​from "the relationship between demand and
supply, "wealth or poverty
human (p. 294-295).

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

Large
also of interest is the Boehm-Bawerk attempt
combine the law of subjective value with
the law of production costs (p. 333). Author
recognizes the statute of costs
rules by which in private
case of unlimited possibilities
increase production really
you can measure the value of the "highly useful"
product, although the costs themselves are ultimately
account are determined by the value of the least
useful (marginal) product.

Big
value for justifying not only Boehm-Bawerk,
but the whole marginalist theory of value
has a small chapter seven. Here Boehm-Bawerk
responds to accusations of unrealism
the marginalist model of man,
doing a huge amount
cumbersome calculations in order to
determine the value of goods (especially "distant
order "). The author's counter-arguments (which
repeat with slight variations
supporters of the marginalist - neoclassical theory to this day)
are as follows:

1. due to habit and skill, most
   calculations of this kind are done almost
   instantly, albeit approximately.
   Excessive prudence is even unprofitable.
   - it requires unnecessary investment of time and effort
   [at this point is clearly manifested
   superiority of the Austrian school, not
   requiring absolute rationality and
   optimal choice, over mathematical
   version of marginalism. Representatives
   the latter were able to embed this conclusion into their
   theory only over 70 years after
   of this work by Stigler G. The economics of
   information // Journal of Political Economy. 1961. V. 69. P. 213-245)];
2. in most cases, the new calculation does
   do not have to do, because the information
   the value of a given thing is already laid down
   in our memory [curious what exactly
   the same considerations Marx in the III volume of "Capital"
   explained the price determination by producers with
   taking into account compensation for the conditions of production,
   different from the average (K. Marx, F.
   Op. 2nd ed. T. 25. Part I. S. 221-236)];
3. finally, a developed system of division of labor
   allows the producer or owner of the goods
   distant order, take into account only the exchange

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

The second
part of the book - "The theory of objective exchange
cost "differs from the statement of those
Menger's same questions are as follows.
Above all Boehm-Bawerk from the start
brings theoretical analysis closer to
modern reality and expresses
subjective values ​​of goods in money (he
has the right to do so, as previously announced
on the measurability of value). Problems
monopoly and imperfect competition in
teachers are written much deeper than
student: buyers, according to Menger, can
buy yourself not one horse, but several:
examines the impact of changes
offers not only for the price, but also for
the number of those who bought (from Böhm-Bawerk
the latter is fixed), etc.

IN
the same time the case of bilateral
competition at Böhm-Bawerk dismantled
much more thoroughly (chapter four
second part).

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

The greatest
theoretical interest, from our point of view,
presents a logical circle analysis,
arising when explaining the price
subjective value, while
the latter "in the existence of an open
market "is determined by the market price (pp. 394-400). Here we see that Böhm-Bawerk
was aware of the existence of this
problems and tried to solve it. He thought,
that the market price is the price at which
the buyer only hopes to purchase the product
in the future, but since this is the future
rather uncertain, the assessment of the good is still
may be revised. Moreover, in all
cases, the boundary of its price will still be "immediate
the ultimate benefit of a given thing "(p. 397).
It cannot be said that the Boehm-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 will be in demand
make use of the
product. (We are reasoning here from the standpoint
the most Austrian theory of value.) On those
the same consumer "open" markets,
where is the price in each this moment may be
quite stable benchmark for
consumer, marginal utility theory
really "slips" with this
that's that.

Two
concluding chapters of Boehm-Bawerk's work
are devoted to highly ingenious attempts
build into the Austrian theory of subjective
values ​​other, alternative explanations
the same phenomenon: "the law of supply and
demand "and" the law of production costs ".
From our point of view, Böhm-Bawerk brings
useful clarifications on the concept of demand and
sentences: classical theory understood
them as simple quantities of goods, aka
considers it necessary to adjust these
quantity, taking into account the intensity of desire
buy a product even for a high price and desires

sell it even at a low price.

Advise
the reader should also pay attention to the fact that
subjective value theory as opposed to
"objective" theories explains such
phenomena like markdowns, cheap
sales, etc. in which goods
sold out below production costs (p.
412--413).

"Theory
public economy "F. von Wieser
(1914) ranked in the history of the Austrian school
about the same place as Basics
political economy "J. S. Mill in
history of English classical
political economy. This is "system shutdown"
ordering different ideas of different
authors, an eclectic desire for
compromises, maximum expansion
object of research, sometimes at the expense of
less depth of research (especially on
comparison with Menger's "Foundations").

For
of this collection, we have selected two fragments
from Wieser's voluminous treatise. The first of
them continues and develops the theory of value
Menger-Böhm-Bawerk and allows the reader
get a complete idea of
Austrian theory of value in general. Second
the fragment, on the other hand, finds no
parallels in Menger and Böhm-Bawerk and
introduces Wieser to us 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
attention is drawn to the fact that all
Wieser's achievements go down the line
approximation of abstract Menger's
analysis to business practice. So,
it is from these considerations that Wieser
strongly rejects the additive way
determining the total utility of a given
stock of goods, when each unit has
different marginal utility, and
advocates a multiplicative way when
marginal utility is simply multiplied by
the amount of homogeneous goods. Further, converts
attention to yourself detailed study
relationship between its own limiting
the usefulness of the product and the costs of its
production (understood as the greatest
the usefulness of other benefits that could be
produced with these funds
production). Wieser proves that in
in most cases, these values
close enough and interchangeable,
however, there are times when a sharp
a change in the stock of goods available or
the need for them can lead to their
sharp discrepancy. In these cases
value is not determined by costs, but
own marginal utility of the good. ...

Next,
and perhaps the most significant contribution
Wieser into Austrian economic theory
school is his solution to the problem
distribution of income. In order to
to solve this problem, Wieser creates
the theory of imputation presented in "20-23. Menger
tries to determine the contribution of each
means of production into final income from
thought experiment: he
assessed how income would decrease due to
loss of this productive good,
when other complementary goods will be
found another application. Wieser thinks
this technique is artificial and ns
appropriate to economic practice (to
moreover, in this case, the total income,
attributable to all factors of production,
there will be less product value). His
the solution is, perhaps, closer to Walrasian: we
have to find some kindred
products (i.e. produced with the help of
the same productive goods),
assessed in the market by the marginal
utility, and build a system of equations
value, 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 manufacturer -
practically) will be able to determine
comparative marginal
productivity of factors of production.

Big
Wieser also pays attention to the separation
productive goods for general 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
enterprise and, accordingly, the rights to
residual income is associated with
the right to dispose of specific
means of production.

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

Wieser
far from the optimism of the English
classics, and above all Smith,
which assumed harmonious
reconciliation of private and public
interests with the help of the "invisible hand"
free competition, and from
unconditional condemnation
private selfishness in
socialist and communist
literature. He emphasizes that the private
property is inextricably linked with
economic activity. But private
property is unthinkable without the powerful
relationship, domination and submission.
Property and power are concentrated in
the 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 I. Schumpeter,
pupil Wieser [see. Schumpeter J.A. Theory
economic development. M .: Progress, 1982].

But
expansion of private capital, of course,
deduces capitalist domination for
limits of economic feasibility and
entails unwanted public
contradictions.

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

relevance

But isn't there inconsistency in Menger's reasoning about the ordinance of goods? Maybe the point is not that goods of different orders satisfy a certain final need (for example, the need to eat), but that different goods satisfy fundamentally different, albeit 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 about sowing wheat, for growing crops and getting flour is analogous. Then the final conclusion should be the recognition of the object (phenomenon) as a good, only with its direct connection with the satisfaction of the need.

History economic doctrines: lecture notes Eliseeva Elena Leonidovna

LECTURE No. 10. Austrian school