Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editorial Sam Whimster Christopher Adair-Toteff explicates Weber extensive interest and support for Georg Friedrich Knapp's State Theory of Money. I once attended a presentation by the veteran FT economics columnist, Martin Wolf, who made clear at the outset of a talk on the financial crisis of 2008 that he would be steering clear of all the many theories of money, fascinating as they were. Max Weber showed no such reluctance, devoting in Economy and Society five sections to the subject with the addition of a long excursus on Knapp's theory. It's not clear why Weber expanded his treatment of money, which already incorporated Knapp, to a special excursus. Guenther Roth speculated (in conversation) that Weber felt the economics needed 'beefing up'. Well, chapter two of E&S—'The Basic Sociological Categories of Economy'—is already easily the longest chapter in 'Part One' of E&S. Knapp's terminology is esoteric, so perhaps Weber felt the need to unpack it. Lytric administration and hylodromic measures are not intuitive terms. Despite this, Knapp cut through the arguments for and against silver/gold and fiat money—see today's 'gold bugs' and silver enthusiasts—as well as arguments over the role of money in economic exchanges with his chartalist theory: it is the state that confers legitimacy and value upon the national currency. To the extent that money is issued and validated by the state and also is properly managed by the state, it is a public good. Arguments today that money 'belongs' to the commercial markets or to the anarchic seignorage of crypto currencies find their match, with varying success, in the state institution of the central bank. Adair-Toteff shows that Knapp failed to see that the value of money was subject to inflationary pressures in the real economy, a point made directly to him by the Hamburg banker Bendixen; also Weber's main point that money is used 'as a weapon in the eternal struggle for economic existence'. Monetary policy should not be off-limits to the sociology of economics. Geoffrey Ingham has long since established that for Weber the making of the modern world lay with the emergence of mobile finance capital, an historic event when Dutch and City of London merchants [End Page 7] funded the Protestant Stadholder Prince William of Orange's invasion of England through a subscription to a new state supported bank, the Bank of England. For the first time 'mobile capital' was released into the world, enabling colonial investments, indentured labour and slavery. Weber spells this out in his General Economic History, in which also the role of Protestant mentality is downgraded to an accompanying feature. Here the method of the ideal type—inner worldly asceticism—confronts the structured narrative of history. Ferenc Takó explicates why this twin-track methodology is not a choice between methods but central to the endeavour of Weberian social science. Changes in the English kingdom, from the court of James II to that of William III, triggered a 'global' conflict in the competing colonial possessions of Protestant England and the Netherlands, and Catholic France and Spain. The outcome of European wars in the early 18th century was that Great Britain gained control of Gibralter, Newfoundland and American lands and took over the Spanish colonial trade. Is this the result of the Protestant ascendancy in England, or should Portuguese colonialism and the slave trade which pre-exist the former be seen as the true imperial legacy? A child of modern European civilization will, unavoidably and justifiably, treat universal-historical problems in the light of the question: to what combination of circumstances the fact should be attributed that in Western civilization, and here only, cultural phenomena have appeared which–at least as we like to think–lie in a line of development having universal significance (Bedeutung) and value? In this, the opening sentence of his 'Author's Introduction' of 1920, Weber was considering the totality of a culture and civilization whose kernel he identified as a form of rationalism. The same question can be asked of colonial legacy whose imprint made and defines the modern capitalist economy. What factor possesses universal significance and universal value? Ferenc Tak...
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".