The Last Knight of Liberalism

Chapter 14. Booms

1 This is one of the central findings of Irmela Gorges’s comprehensive study of the research subjects and methodological orientations of three representative social science organisations of the time: the Verein für Sozialpolitik, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie, and the Cologne Forschungsinstitut für Sozialwissenschaften. See Gorges, Sozialforschung in der Weimarer Republik 1918–1933 (Frankfurt a.M.: Anton Hain, 1986), pp. 694–98.

2 One observer who met him first as a young man in 1928 would later recall:

What Edwin Cannan has been for England, Frank H. Knight for the USA and Luigi Einaudi for Italy, Ludwig von Mises was for the German speaking world: Austria, Germany and Switzerland, the initiator for a renaissance of liberalism and the market economy. (Albert Hunold, editorial of The Mont Pèlerin Quarterly 3, no. 3 [October 1961]: 3)

This leadership in policy debate was based on similar leadership in the field of positive analysis, as can be inferred from a 1925 festschrift for Lujo Brentano that set out to portray the state of the art in economics after World War I. Here Mises figures among the thirteen most-cited authors, along with Böhm-Bawerk, Brentano, Cassel, Eulenburg, Keynes, Marx, J.S. Mill, Ricardo, Schumpeter, Sombart, Spann, Walras, and Wieser. See Moritz J. Bonn and Melchior Palyi, Die Wirtschaftswissenschaft nach dem Kriege (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1925).

3 See William H. Beveridge, The London School of Economics and Its Problems, 1919–1937 (London: Allen & Unwin, 1960), esp. pp. 50, 83, 85, 88ff., 109. The founders of LSE were Sidney and Beatrice Webb. The Laura Spelman Memorial was named after the wife of John D. Rockefeller, and later absorbed into the Rockefeller Foundation. In 1923–1924, LSM donated almost $100,000 to LSE; in 1926, it gave another $500,000 for research on the “natural bases” of economics, and $175,000 for other projects.

4 The idea that economics could be turned into applied mathematics or applied biology is a good illustration of Keynes’s famous dictum that each generation labors under the ideas “of some defunct economist.” See John Maynard Keynes, General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [1936] 1973), p. 383. William Stanley Jevons and his followers such as Edgeworth had been very influential within British academia in pressing the case for mathematics in economic science. The great champion of the case for biology was Alfred Marshall: “The Mecca of the economist lies in economic biology rather than in economic dynamics” (Principles of Economics: An Introductory Volume, 8th ed. , p. xiv). Keynes knew what he was talking about.

5 He had a mailbox with the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial in New York City. See Mises to Brodnitz, letter dated February 26, 1926; Mises Archive 80: 20.

6 See the Department’s report in Mises Archive 57: 79; see also the Baker-Kellog investment letter, dated April 24, 1926; Mises Archive 57: 70. Mises obtained this letter apparently through a certain Mr. W.W. Welsh in Chicago.

7 “After the death of Böhm-Bawerk and Wieser... Mises was manifestly the leader of the school” (Fritz Machlup, “Ludwig von Mises: The Academic Scholar Who Would Not Compromise,” Wirtschaftspolitische Blätter 28, no. 4 [1981]: 9). See also Werner Neudeck, “Der Einfluss von Ludwig von Mises auf die Österreichische akademische Tradition gestern und heute,” ibid., p. 27.

8 Mises to U.S. Department of State, letter dated December 20, 1941; Grove City Archive: Mexico 1942 files. The local coordinator for the Rockefeller Foundation in Vienna was British-born Alfred Francis Pribram (not related to Karl and Ewald Pribram).

9 This lecture was delivered to the German Hauptverband der Industrie in Czechoslovakia. See Mises to Magazin der Wirtschaft, letter dated December 20, 1926; Mises Archive 80: 10.

10 Mises Archive 57: 65ff.; 83a.

11 He probably also delivered a version of this paper, in the fall of the same year, in a two-hour lecture on “Government and the National Economy.” He gave the talk at a summer university designed for American students visiting Vienna (Internationale Hochschulkurse). See Mises to Martha Stefanie Braun, letter dated July 20, 1926; Mises Archive 83: 59.

12 Mises to Brodnitz, letter dated September 16, 1926; Mises Archive 80: 5.

13 John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Howe, 1920). For a critique of the fundamental errors in Keynes’s assessment of Germany’s ability to comply with the Treaty’s economic stipulations (war reparations), see Henry Hazlitt, “The 1919 Prophecies of Maynard Keynes,” New York Times Book Review (March 11, 1945), p. 5; Etienne Mantoux, The Carthaginian Peace or The Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946).

14 Mises to Montes de Oca, letter dated February 26, 1949; Grove City Archive: Montes de Oca files.

15 To what extent Keynes was welcomed with open arms can be gathered from Friedrich von Wieser’s endorsement in his very last work, of Keynes’s proposals for replacing the gold exchange standard by fiat paper money:

An economist with the broad vision and scientific acuity of Keynes could raise the question of whether it would be possible to replace the gold standard altogether with another system that would allow for stable exchange rates at lower costs. (Friedrich von Wieser, “Theorie des Geldes,” Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, 4th ed. , vol. 4, p. 716)

16 These complications arise, according to Keynes,

(1) when the efficient units of production are large relative to the units of consumption..., (2) when overhead costs or joint costs are present, (3) when internal economies tend to the aggregation of production, (4) when the time required for adjustments is long, (5) when ignorance prevails over knowledge, and (6) when monopolies and combinations interfere with equality in bargaining. (John Maynard Keynes, The End of Laissez-Faire , pp. 32f.)

17 Ibid., pp. 47f.

18 Mises, “Das Ende des Laissez-Faire, Ideen zur Verbindung von Privat-und Gemeinwirtschaft” (The end of laissez-faire: ideas for combining the private and public economy), Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 82 (1927): 190–91. Apparently, Mises sent a pre-publication copy of this review to Gregory in London; see Mises Archive 83: 58.

19 Mises was probably in attendance, but it is possible that he was among those “Austrian gentlemen” who reportedly did not attend the sessions they were supposed to attend, to the great dismay of the Verein’s secretary, Franz Boese.

20 Franz Boese, Geschichte des Vereins für Sozialpolitik, 1872–1932 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1939), pp. 194f.

21 Immediately after the 1926 Verein für Sozialpolitik meeting in Vienna, Mises recommended Konrad Zweig to Adolf Löwe for a position in Kiel. Zweig was just about to receive his doctorate. Mises knew him from his University seminar. Löwe eventually hired Zweig, emphasizing the “angenehmen Beziehungen” (pleasant relationship) he had established with Mises. See Löwe to Mises, letter dated October 2, 1926; Mises Archive 80: 17f.

22 One hundred dollars could buy roughly five ounces of gold, thus at present (February 2006) more than $2,500.

23 See Manfred Mautner and Franz Nemschak, Zum 25 jährigen Bestand des Österreichischen Institutes für Wirtschaftsforschung (Vienna: Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, 1952), p. 9. The study of business cycles was at the time one of the most fashionable topics and one that seemed to be relevant for international economic cooperation. The League’s initiative could rely on funding by the Rockefeller Foundation.

24 From a legal point of view, the Institut was set up as a private association and publicly registered on December 2, 1926. See the copy of the bylaws in Mises Archive 57: 85ff. On the early years of the Institut, see Mautner and Nemschak, Zum 25 jährigen Bestand des Österreichischen Institutes für Wirtschaftsforschung; see also Carl Theodore Schmitt, “The Austrian Institute for Business Cycle Research,” Journal of Political Economy 39, no. 1 (February 1931): 101–03.

25 Mohr/Siebeck to Mises, letter dated April 25, 1931; Mises Archive 93: 13.

26 The Rockefeller Foundation provided funding from 1929 to 1938. See Mautner and Nemschak, Zum 25 Jährigen Bestand des Österreichischen Institutes für Wirtschaftsforschung, p. 12. The first seven volumes in this series have passed the test of time and are today classics of Austrian economics: F.A. Hayek’s Geldtheorie und Konjunkturtheorie (1929); Fritz Machlup’s Börsenkredit, Industriekredit und Kapitalbildung (1931), Hayek’s Preise und Produktion (1933), Erich Schiff’s Kapitalbildung und Kapitalaufzehrung im Konjunkturverlauf (1933), Oskar Morgenstern’s Grenzen der Wirtschaftspolitik (1934), Machlup’s Führer durch die Krisenpolitik (1934), and Richard Strigl’s Kapital und Produktion (1934). After Mises’s departure from Vienna in 1934, Morgenstern, who in 1931 had succeeded Hayek as the director of the Institute, began to publish works with a markedly less Austrian orientation: Ragnar Nurkse’s Internationale Kapitalbewegungen (1935), Gerhard Tintner’s Die Preise im Konjunkturverlauf (1935), and Abraham Wald’s Berechnung und Ausschaltung von Saisonschwankungen (1936). Apart from this series of monographs, the most important outlet for theoretical research was the Zeitschrift für Nationalökomonie (established in 1930), which under the editorship of Hans Mayer featured many pioneering articles on the role of time in economics, on equilibrium analysis, on capital theory, and on business cycle theory.

27 Franz Nemschak to Mises, letter dated January 3, 1964; Grove City Archive: Österreichisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung files.

28 Mises later summarized the experience of the second half of the 1920s in a report to the Austrian government that he co-authored at the government’s behest in 1930. See Redaktionskomitee der Wirtschaftskommission, Bericht über die Ursachen der wirtschaftlichen Schwierigkeiten Österreichs (Vienna: Staatsdruckerei, 1930).

29 Rudolf Sieghart, Die letzten Jahrzehnte einer Grossmacht (Berlin: Ullstein, 1932), p. 195. Sieghart went on:

Later these same circles reproached the directors of the bank [he means the large and influential Boden-Credit-Anstalt, which he directed in those years] with having too generously complied with the credit wishes of these same industries.

30 He delivered the address to the plenary meeting of the Niederösterreichischen Gewerbeverein (Commercial Association of Lower Austria). A copy of the published version of his talk is in Mises Archive 62: 41.

31 Prior to 1925, tax laws and other regulations prohibited Austrian firms from calculating capital consumption in terms of gold prices. The legally permissible balance sheets therefore presented an unrealistically optimistic picture of the firms. See Redaktionskomitee der Wirtschaftskommission, Bericht über die Ursachen der wirtschafilichen Schwierigkeiten Österreichs, p. 12.

32 Also, because of the rent control laws, the local, state, and federal governments, which already in 1914 owned more than half of all urban rental housing, significantly reduced their income.

33 In those days, demonstrations were armed demonstrations as a matter of course. The socialist party had its own private army, the Republikanische rSchutzbund or “republican alliance for mutual protection.” Established in 1924, it counted some 80,000 men in 1928; see Ernst Hoor, Österreich 1918–1938 (Vienna: Bundesverlag für Unterricht, Wissenschaft und Kunst, 1966), p. 101. Similarly, on the other side of the political spectrum, there was the Heimwehr or “home defence” movement, a private military organisation that had emerged shortly after 1918 and which later split into a patriotic “Austrian” and a national socialist wing; in September 1933, the Austrian wing joined the new Vaterländische Front or “patriotic front.”

34 Mises to Steiner, letter dated July 21, 1927; Mises Archive: 62: 20. Fritz Georg Steiner had been one of the top students in Mises’s seminar at the University of Vienna. See Martha Steffy Browne [Braun], “Erinnerungen an das Mises-Privatseminar,” Wirtschaftspolitische Blätter28, no. 4 (1981): 111.

35 Mises to Freihandelsbund gegen Teuerung und Wirtschaftszwang, letter dated November 11, 1924; Mises Archive 80: 60.

36 Mises, “Die Lehre vom Gelde,” Forschungen und Fortschritte (Berlin, February 1928).

37 Mises to Fischer, letter dated March 17, 1928; Mises Archive 87a: 17.

38 Mises received a fee of 550 marks. He had Fischer send him a check from a German bank. Fischer sent 15 complimentary copies directly to their recipients, and 15 complimentary and 10 more paid copies to Mises. See the correspondence in Mises Archive 87a: 3, 7.

39 Mises, Geldwertstabilisierung und Konjunkturpolitik (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1928), p. 58.

40 Ibid., pp. 61, 65f., 73ff., 81ff.

41 Browne [Braun], “Erinnerungen an das Mises-Privatseminar,” p. 116. See also Gertrud Pütz-Neuhauser, “Zur Entwicklung der Konjunkturtheorie im deutschen Sprachraum in der Zwischenkriegszeit,” B. Schefold, ed., Studien zur Entwicklung der ökonomischen Theorie VIII (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1989), pp. 97f. The conference was attended by about 300 participants.

42 University of London Press to Mises, letter dated May 25, 1928; Mises Archive 62: 69.

43 Mises to Frederick Nymeyer, letter dated May 14, 1953; Grove City Archive: Nymeyer files. He had also joined the American Economic Association, for the same reasons.

44 Mises to Ugo Papi, letter dated March 17, 1933; Mises Archive 94: 3. In his 1922 Habilitation monograph on business cycles, Wilhelm Röpke did not even mention Mises; see Wilhelm Röpke, Die Konjunktur (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1922). Ten years later, he had read the Austrians; see his Krise und Konjunktur (Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1932). He had first met Mises in 1922 at the meeting of the Verein. In the early 1920s, he worked in the German reparations office. It is likely that he often met Mises at international conferences dealing with war debt.

45 Mises Archive 22: 8ff. At the heart of the German-language debate on business cycle theory in the late 1920s was the question whether this theory was, or could be, part of Léon Walras’s general equilibrium theory; or whether it required a different approach. Christof Rühl discusses the approaches of Hayek, Löwe, Lutz, and Schumpeter, in Rühl, “Der Beitrag deutschsprachiger Ökonomen zur konjunkturtheoretischen Debatte der Zwischenkriegszeit,” H. Hagemann, ed., Zur deutschsprachigen wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Emigration nach 1933 (Marburg: Metropolis, 1997), pp. 243–92. Mises took no active part in this methodological debate. He later addressed the main issues when he set out to formulate his own equilibrium theory in the late 1930s. We will deal with his contribution in chapters 16 and 17. On the development of monetary business cycle theories from Wicksell to Hayek, see Carl-Ludwig Holtfrerich, “Zur Entwicklung der monetären Konjunkturtheorien: Wicksell, Schumpeter, Mises und Hayek,” in Schefold, ed., Studien zur Entwicklung der ökonomischen Theorie 8, pp. 103–40.

46 Mises was elected in absentia at the meeting of the reform committee on March 6–7, 1929. He received a report from one of his closest allies in those years, Georg Jahn, a professor from Halle. See Jahn to Mises, letter dated March 9, 1929; Mises Archive: 22: 42.

47 See the discussion in “A Copernican Shift,” chapter 10 in this volume.

48 Vilfredo Pareto, Manuel d’économie politique, 4th ed. (Geneva: Droz, 1966 [1909]), vol. 3, § 36; Gustav Cassel, Grundgedanken der theoretischen Ökonomie (Leipzig and Erlangen: Hatschek & Scholl, 1926).

49 Enrico Barone in F.A. Hayek, ed., Collectivist Economic Planning: Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism (London: Routledge, 1935). Mises referred to §§ 17, 80, and 168 of this work. See Mises to Wieser letter dated December 12, 1929; Mises Archive 91: 4. The correspondence was a followup to personal discussions in Cologne. On Tuesday, December 3, 1929, Mises had lectured in Cologne on “economic interests and political parties.” Rudolf Seyffert, who was the head of the department of economics and social sciences, directed the lecture series “contemporary political theories” and invited Mises to give one of the talks. See Seyffert to Mises, letter dated October 18, 1929; Mises to Seyffert, letter dated October 28, 1929; Mises Archive 62: 107, 112.

50 In the original texts we read: “Als Gefühl ist der Wert jeder Messung unzugänglich; Vergleiche mit anderen, gleichartigen Gefühlen sind möglich,” Theorie des Geldes und der Umlaufsmittel, 1st ed. (Munich and Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1912), p. 16. Twelve years later, he changed this to: “Der Wertungsakt ist jeder Messung unzugänglich” (2nd ed., Munich and Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1924, p. 11). In the English edition: “Acts of valuation are not susceptible of any kind of measurement,” Theory of Money and Credit (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1980), p. 52. Similarly, speaking about his book Nation, Staat und Wirtschaft in the fall of 1925, Mises said in a letter to Robbins that he would have to rewrite the book thoroughly for a new edition. See Mises to Lionel Robbins, letter dated October 9, 1925; Mises Archive 83: 61.

51 Mises, “Remarks on the Fundamental Problem of the Subjective Theory of Value,” Epistemological Problems of Economics, 3rd ed. (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2003), chap. 5, p. 178. The original publication was “Bemerkungen zum Grundproblem der subjektivistischen Wertlehre,” Archiv für Socialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik (February 1928).

52 Mises, “Remarks on the Fundamental Problem of the Subjective Theory of Value,” p. 180.

53 Mises went on:

All attention was turned toward this law, and it was mistakenly regarded the chief and basic law of the new theory. Indeed, the latter was more often called the theory of diminishing marginal utility than the doctrine of the subjectivist school, which would have been more suitable and would have avoided misunderstandings.” (Ibid., p. 180)

54 See Ludwig von Mises and Arthur Spiethoff, Probleme der Wertlehre (Munich and Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1931). This was volume 183/I in the series of the Verein publications. A companion volume 183/II, which contained the proceedings of the Dresden meeting, was published in 1933.

55 Mises, “On the Development of the Subjective Theory of Value,” Epistemological Problems of Economics:

All conscious conduct on the part of men involves preferring an A to a B. It is an act of choice between two alternative possibilities that offer themselves. Only these acts of choice, these inner decisions that operate upon the external world, are our data. We comprehend their meaning by constructing the concept of importance. If an individual prefers A to B, we say that, at the moment of the act of choice, A appeared more important to him (more valuable, more desirable) than B. (p. 149)

56 The actual selection process merely can be based on the profitability calculus, but does not preclude other decisions. Nothing prevents a businessman from building a social hall for his friends rather than a factory for his customers. Yet the benefit of the money calculus remains even in this case, for it tells the businessman exactly what he is giving up for his personal consumption—the satisfaction of providing unpaid catering for his friends. Without prices, he could not calculate the opportunity cost of his decision.

57 It is not possible to say whether 1,000,000 gallons of milk are somehow more (or less) than the 1,000 cows that produce this milk, just as it is impossible to say whether a palace garden is more (or less) than the 100 gardeners who brought it into shape. The reason is that all these things are heterogeneous and therefore cannot be compared quantitatively—the problem of adding apples and oranges. For the same reason it is also impossible to tell whether using the cows to produce the milk is more efficient than using the gardeners to bring the garden into shape. But once all these things are exchanged against money, we can make such quantitative comparisons, namely, by comparing their money prices. Depending on what these prices are, we can say that the milk exchanges for more (or less) money than the cows, and that the garden exchanges for more (or less) money than the services of the gardeners. And depending on the ratios of selling and buying prices (the profitability) we can assert that our money is more (or less) efficiently used in producing milk than in producing a palace garden.

58 Friedrich von Wieser, “Das Wesen und der Hauptinhalt der theoretischen Nationalökonomie—kritische Glossen,” Gesammelte Abhandlungen, F.A. Hayek, ed. (Tübingen: Mohr, [1911] 1929).

59 Pareto, Manuel d’économie politique, chap. 2, §§ 1–18. Pareto is a subjectivist only in the sense that he recognizes the subjective character of the goals of human action (see ibid., chap. 3, §§ 29f.), which is why he strictly distinguishs between (objective) utility and (subjective) “ophelimity.” Yet Pareto’s subjectivism stops short when it comes to dealing with the means of action because here he professes to consider only the case of “logical action.”

60 Ibid., chap. 3, § 152.

61 Vilfredo Pareto, Manual of Political Economy (New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1971), chap. 3, p. 155. He went on:

The use of prices is the simplest and easiest means for solving the equations of equilibrium; if one insisted on not using them, he would probably end up by using them under another name, and there would then be only a change of language, and not of things.

62 See in particular Gary Becker, Economic Theory (New York: Knopf, 1971); idem, A Treatise on the Family (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991).

63 Mises, Kritik des Interventionismus (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1929; reprint Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1976), p. 72; see also idem, Gemeinwirtschaft, 1st ed. (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1922), p. 355.

64 Mises, Kritik des Interventionismus, p. 28.

65 Mises, “Soziologie und Geschichte,” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 61, no. 3 (1929): 465–512; reprinted in Mises, Grundprobleme der Nationalökonomie (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1933), chap. 2; translated as “Sociology and History,” Epistemological Problems of Economics, 3rd ed. (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2003), chap. 2.

66 Mises praised in particular the “Southwest German School of New Criticism” (Windelband, Rickert, and Weber) for developing the concept of “understanding”—the specific tool of the science of history. See Wilhelm Windelband, Präludien, 8th ed. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1922), vol. 2, pp. 136ff.; Heinrich Rickert, 2nd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1913); idem, Kulturwissenschaft und Naturwissenschaft, 3rd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1915); Max Weber, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, 7th ed. (Tübingen: UTB, 1988); Henri Bergson, L’éevolution créatrice (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, [1907] 1991).

67 Max Weber, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 3rd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1947), chap. 1, § 1.

68 The essay “Sociology and History” would be the last time Mises would use the term in this sense. He had used it in the first edition of Gemeinwirtschaft (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1922).

69 Mises, Epistemological Problems of Economics, pp. 114f.

70 Ibid., p. 118.

71 Ibid., p. 98. Mises here quotes Weber, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre (Tübingen: Mohr, 1922), p. 191.

72 Mises, Epistemological Problems of Economics, pp. 85f.

73 Ibid., pp. 98f.

74 Ibid., p. 114.

75 Ibid., pp. 122f. A year earlier, in Geldwertstabilisierung und Konjunkturpolitik (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1928), Mises still maintained more empiricist notions about the epistemology of economics. Although he emphasized that some sort of theory was necessary to interpret observed fact (pp. 39–42), he at one point went so far as to assert that the Harvard business barometer delivered a statistical verification of the circulation-credit theory (p. 69).

76 Mises, Epistemological Problems of Economics, pp. 128f.

77 On this and the following see Margit von Mises’s typewritten record of the events—Mises Archive 105—which was probably written in November 1927.

78 Margit von Mises, My Years with Ludwig von Mises, 2nd enlarged ed. (Cedar Falls, Iowa: Center for Futures Education, 1984), pp. 18f.

79 We are still paraphrasing Margit von Mises’s rather vague record of the events (document in Mises Archive 105). From the phrase “she would have to become Jewish again” one must infer that she had been Jewish before getting married to Ferdinand Serény, a protestant. The phrase “training period for marriage” is liable to several plausible interpretations and has probably been selected for precisely this reason.

80 Mises to Margit Serény, letter dated November 3, 1927; Mises Archive 62: 35f. Mises wrote this letter at the behest of Professor Adler, Margit’s doctor, who had conveyed Margit’s wish that he explain in full why he refused to see her again. The physician in question must have been Ludwig Adler; see Margit von Mises, My Years with Ludwig von Mises, p. 8.

81 On September 16, he was still in the hospital. See the letter that Mises’s secretary sent to the Königsberger Hartungsche Zeitung, dated September 16, 1927; Mises Archive 62: 10.

82 Margit von Mises, My Years with Ludwig von Mises, p. 19.