Has Zur Theorie des Kapitals ever been translated? Mises, I understand, took Menger’s view of Capital in the sense of accounting for all higher-order economic goods. But, it seems this 1888 paper of Menger’s hasn’t been translated, as far as I know. JSTOR has a reprint from 1921, and the original doesn’t seem to be here either.
How long is it? If it’s not a magnum opus, I’d be willing to translate it if you could provide a link to the material.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1800&Itemid=27
It is 50 pages, which is quite a lot to ask.
On the other hand, if you do translate it, you could publish the translation. The text is in the public domain.
On the [third?] hand, on JSTOR there is a letter from Menger to Bohm-Bawerk, dated 1884, published 1921, apparently on the same topic.
The letter is 2 pages. If you have access to JSTOR, then searching carl menger as author will bring it up. Else, I can send it to you, as the publication is old enough to be outside of copyright.
I don’t have access to JSTOR, so you’d have to send the letter to me in some form. Private message or as a response to this topic would be preferred.
In the meantime, I’ll work on the 50-page book.
I’ve sent you the letter by email.
Thank you very much for the help!
The url keeps saying address not found, do you have another link? I would like to read it. I would help, but I’m a worthless translator. I always lose the meaning.
Scratch that found it.
I checked all my mail accounts, but I’ve not received anything. I don’t know which address I’ve used here either, so I’d appreciate if you could send it to me via PM or post it here. Thank you.
I have translated the letter:
http://home.arcor.de/ma/markusdinsy/meng.pdf
However, I felt a little lost while translating. I think it would all be more understandable if one had the original text by Böhm-Bawerk that Menger was sort of responding to. Maybe you do. If this letter is too vague, I’ll continue my translation of the book. Just let me know.
Thanks very much for the translation!
The text is probably, if I had to guess, Bohm-Bawerk’s Capital and Interest, which was published earlier that year. I remember Bohm-Bawerk had some comments to the effect Menger is arguing against. I sort of see what he was getting at, but a translation of the booklet would be great.
In Mises, Human Action, pp. 262-264, is where the discussion of this issue of interest appears to be.
If you do complete the translation of the booklet, I’m pretty sure the Mises.org will put it up as an article for you.
Best regards
How is the translation progressing?
(BTW, I had apparently misspelled my profile when registered; fixed now…hence the corrected profile.)
Sorry for not responding.
I’m a little busy lately, I don’t know when I’ll get to do the translation. I hope it’s not an urgent project that you need the book for because it might take a little longer.
Whenever you have time to translate it is absolutely fine.
I think we poked on this some years ago but we never accomplished the end result that people were happy with.
wow, awesome. I found the p.s. at the end oddly amusing
Sphairon did an excellent translation of the letter.
Of course, the letter was much shorter, but the style should be the same, after all?
Perhaps the previous efforts to translate could be posted to aid the translator?
Just wanted to say that I’m still hanging in there, but since Mr. Prof. Menger seems to try to imitate Roman philosophers syntactically, it’s taking a little time. [:P]
Great to hear from you!
Thank for the update.
I have a question. Menger uses a phrase called “werbendes Vermögen” quite often. It seems to be outdated in German now, so I didn’t find a proper translation, but I found a description. It reads like this:
That part of a company’s assets which serves the actual productive process as opposed to the deposit premium, excess assets and administrative property.
Eventually, I decided to translate it with “productive assets”. But since Menger uses it quite often, it’d be embarassing if that turns out to be the wrong term. So, I thought, maybe one of you guys knows a better translation or can confirm my choice?