Menger’s precursors in the German subjective-value tradition and his advancements in the theory of wants and goods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Menger made wants and goods the center of economic analysis. This paper locates his theory of wants and goods in the history of economic ideas, identifying major influences from the German subjective-value tradition of the 19th century. Our survey of select German economists prior to 1871 – Hufeland, Storch, Rau, Hermann, Mischler, Stein and Schäffle – discovers insights that highlight the subjective and processual nature of the wants-goods nexus, as does Menger’s approach. Menger’s process approach to economics had several precursors – the historical record is much more nuanced than previously recognized. Menger combined existing ideas on wants and goods into a novel, more coherent and productive framework. He portrayed human wants and the desire to satisfy them as the driving force propelling economic processes. Menger’s theory about wants and goods provided the foundations for his theory of subjective value. He showed how the simple idea that people value goods in light of their wants is the key to the most fundamental problems of economic theory, including value, price formation, production, distribution and economic development, and he applied this insight to explain complex economic processes in modern market economies. Menger’s work constitutes a major synthesis that advances earlier ideas (especially of Hermann, Mischler and Schäffle) on wants, goods and their interplay, and his focus upon complementarities of consumer goods constitutes yet a further advancement on German economics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it