Talk:Carl Menger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Okay that pretty much covers his Bio(there is a little more fleshing out to be done but not much). Next up: To explain his ideas and contrast them with Classical Economics and Historicism(to understand why Menger is significant). And then: To discuss his lingering impact on all of economics, not just the Austrian School. Please leave comments and critiques below.

Ok did some more fleshing out of the Bio, I'd say that part is about 90% done.

Works can be downloaded[edit]

I.e. at - I think those links could be added.

This URL ( redirects to this one( I doubt the Menger Hotel is more relevant than Carl Menger. At least there should be a link to a desambiguation page, I think.

I tried to add a link to a study guide to Menger's principles of economics, but it has been deleted.My question : WHY ? There are no copyrights prob, since I hold them. And the site is If anyone wants to add it, here's the link :, by Jérémie T.A. Rostan.Rostan (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dead Link[edit]

The link to the abridged "Principles of Economics" is no longer working as of this edit. If it remains dead for a while, it should be removed. Jlick (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


This article has Menger's birthday as February 28. The online Britannica (at least) has it at February 23. Can someone find an authoritative reference? I just want to know if I celebrated prematurely. :) SkyDot (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Any important mainstream criticisms?[edit]

That would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Economics - origin of money[edit]

How can Menger be credited with this view of the origin of money, as a special barter good, when this is essentially what Adam Smith argued in the Wealth of Nations in 1776? (See barter.) Either the credited source is somehow unaware of Adam Smith's work, or the section leaves out whatever was new or unique in Menger. -- Kevin Saff (talk)

"Menger used his “Subjective Theory of Value” to arrive at one of the most powerful insights in economics: both sides gain from exchange."[edit]

I'm pretty sure everyone was aware of this from the beginning. Bastiat believed this, Smith believed this, hell, even Marx says exactly this word for word on Capital ("exchange is a transaction by which both sides gain").

This is neither a powerful, nor a novel insight of Menger's theory. It's both trivial and older than his grandparents.

Taking note of the way it's written and of its status as a verifiably factually wrong statement I suspect that the above was added for ideological reasons and either way conclude that it should be removed and if not removed that it should be mentioned as a false opinion of its source.

The marginalists' contribution was the provision of a conceptually coherent tool for short-term price formation. Not coming to the trivial conclusion that nominally voluntary exchanges are motivated by something other than blind luck. It's a childish affront to theories as complex as the STV to pretend their insight was something my dog intuitively understands.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carl Menger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Reason why he quitted his professorship[edit]

In the article there is the sentence: "Largely due to his pessimism about the state of German scholarship, Menger resigned his professorship in 1903 to concentrate on study."

My hypothesis is that this was not the reasin he left professorship. Menger was a Catholic single and lived in a convservative society. My hypothesis is that he was required or at least expected to be celibate in order to teach. In 1902 his one son, Karl, was born out of wedlock. I speculate that either he was compelled by others or more probably by his own feelings to quit formal teaching and scientific enterprises. Indeed, he asked the then emperor of Austria-Hungary, who had been his pupil, to allow him too place his surname as the child's surname. However, it seems he could never marry the mother of the child.