Talk:Austrian school of economics/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Close of the RfC about Krugman's Inflation critique

Just to remind everyone what the RfC close was (which is the standard way to ascertain consensus):[1]

Consensus is to Include Krugman's inflation critique, cited with reliable sources (ie, not a blog); however, the criticism should not be written in the encyclopedic voice, but should specifically attribute the perspective, eg "One criticism of the Austrian theory, by Paul Krugman, is that blah blah blah". As a Nobel laureate in economics, his commentary on economic matters is WP:NOTABLE if covered by any WP:SECONDARY sources.

Thus, it is against consensus to remove all mention of Krugman's inflation critique from the article, if it is supported by reliable sources, and has been shown to be notable from coverage in secondary sources. Coverage in secondary sources:

LK (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This has already been responded to. One, it includes "blah blah blah", so it's not a legitimate proposal. Second, a one vote majority is not a consensus. Three, there are new objections to the proposal which have, repeatedly, not been addressed. Byelf2007 (talk) 29 March 2013
If it's referring to this criticism, then I think it should be in there, too. A wise editor once wrote, "in other words, you disagree with the criticism, so let's take it out?"[2]
EJM86 (talk
) 02:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Morgenstern Not Austrian School

Oscar Morgenstern was from Austria, but he was NOT at all part of the Austrian school of economics. He was a mathematician and he had literally no connection with any Austrian Economics theory at all. The closest he came to Austrian theory was his conservatism. And his main contribution to economics argued for cardinal utility, not ordinal. I deleted the claim that he is an example of mathematical analysis (ordinal utility even!) in the Austrian School. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.133.211.107 (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

He was an Austrian economist, and he referred to the Mengers, etc.; see his contribution to a Menger festschrift, for example. He was a scientist and associate of the Vienna Circle, and probably never signed an oath to any cult. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Oskar Morgenstern was a contemporary of Hayek, Machlup, and Haberler among University of Vienna economics matriculants around 1920. He was not a mathematician. He collaborated with mathematician, von Neumann. N-M utility is "cardinal" only in the sense that it is unique up to a linear transformation, not cardinal in the sense which you appear to mean. For additional background see this discussion of the history of the Austrian School by Israel Kirzner. SPECIFICO talk 21:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

First sentence of lede

I just took a fresh look at the first sentence of the lede, which I believe that I wrote last year. I am now concerned that most economists of whatever tradition would say the same thing about their own approach. Austrians certainly like to say that, but wouldn't any Samuelson era or later textbook say the same thing about economics? Anyone with thoughts about a better initial presentation? SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence is not informative. Not that it should be removed, but it is not informative. If you could tell me what the Austrian School is really about (after reading this article 10 times I don't know, and I'm no dummy) then I could recommend a good lead.  :-) North8000 (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Krugman proposal

I support having a Krugman-inflation entry (it being pretty notable) which makes it clear that it's his interpretation of AS views, and the interpretation is controversial (putting it in the 'general criticisms' section might be a good idea). The two outstanding objections to this I am aware of are (a) the 'combatant issue' (North8000) and (b) the objection that the criticisms section is too long (multiple users, I think). I don't particularly care about this issue. Feedback is appreciated. Byelf2007 (talk) 17 March 2013

1. If you wish to manifest your good will in this matter, I strongly suggest you revert your last undo and restore the text decided in the RfC until a new consensus is reached.
2. Following the discussion by other editors about integrating criticism text to the associated sections and statements in the article, I relocated the Krugman and Timberlake criticisms in a way which makes clear their connection to Mises' canonical statement of Austrian inflation theory.
3. After you revert your last undo, I suggest you write and present your proposed alternative text. Keep in mind, however, that it is outside our mandate as WP editors to judge or qualify the truth or accuracy of a statement such as Krugman's. That would constitute
WP:OR. SPECIFICO talk
02:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus, and there never was, unless, there's and argument or two for this notion you'd like to share with us.

"I suggest you write and present your proposed alternative text". Something like 'his interpretation of Austrian theory' or similiar is fine. I don't particularly care.

"it is outside our mandate as WP editors to judge or qualify the truth or accuracy of a statement such as Krugman's". I already addressed this point. Is is our job to determine whether or not it is actually AS as per reliable sources. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 March 2013

My own opinion is that the sentences:

"Krugman points out that in the period from 2007 to late 2012, the monetary base increased by more than 350% with concomitant price inflation of less than 3% per year. According to Krugman, "If you believe that... expanding credit will simply result in too much money chasing too few goods, and hence a lot of inflation... the failure of high inflation to materialize amounts to a decisive rejection of that [Austrian] model"

to me looks more like a vague uninformative "swipe" than good material for the article. The first questions that come to mind when I read this are:

  • It implies that it is addressing a central tenet of Austria School, but doesn't say exactly what that tenet is.
  • What is he calling "the monetary base" and is his choice one that is a part of the Austrian School tenet which he says that it refutes?

My gut feel is that it would be better off to find better stuff and leave this out out. North8000 (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Good points. However, Krugman is a notable guy, so even if his argument 'doesn't make sense', I don't see why that should matter, as long as we don't do any misrepresenting ourselves. I'm also basically unconvinced that including the Krugman content at all is a good idea, but I'm still fine with it as long as it's clear that what Krugman mentions isn't necessarily Austrian theory. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 March 2013

In my opinion in general criticism where Krugman is mentioned it should be also said that he refuses to debate this with any of austrian scholars, although 105 000$ fund was established, that would go to hungry New Yorkers if he debates for an hour. (http://www.krugmandebate.com/) Also in general criticism with Jeffrey Sachs and Sudha Shenoy it should be mentioned most of countries in mind (Scandinavian etc.) were not plagued by two world wars. (http://mises.org/daily/4146; http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx) Savo Gajic (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Savo, I don't see how the debate thing is relevant to a criticism of Austrian theory, nor do I see why it should be in the article at all. The other thing is maybe good, but this isn't the place to talk about that. Please put it in a different section on talk (create one). Byelf2007 (talk) 27 March 2013
Regarding "wars argument" - thanks, I will do that soon. Maybe under "General criticisms" part in here, since Jeffrey Sachs and Sudha Shenoy are already mentioned there.
Here is my thinking, Krugman's criticism is mentioned 8 times in a article. It is intellectual dishonesty (and one of character) to loudly criticize one school of thought and than refuse to even debate for an hour with an actual austrian economist; where he has debated with politicians "to boost his book sales" in his own words. So if his critic is in any way or form relevant, why not settle it once for all and end with austrians, or if he doesn't want to lose his time on irrelevant things, he has humanitarian incentive (or why call out austrians in a first place?)... So all in all, it comes to this, either criticizer and critic is irrelevant and should be deleted, or what is in my opinion far better solution, since he is "Notable" this discrepancy should be there for readers to know and decide for themselves. This could be done in one or two sentences, just a note that he refuses the offer of debate from 2010 although 105 000$ fund for Food bank New York was established; + a link to site.Savo Gajic (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Alternative text

Byelf, consider whether you'd like to propose the following as an alternative to the current text:

Economist Richard Timberlake criticised von Mises' view that inflation must refer to an increase in the money supply. Timberlake noted that economists since the time of John Stuart Mill have recognized the distinction between increases in the money stock and increases in the general level of money prices. Timberlake stated that Mises' view has repeatedly been proven false and that statistical measurement of the aggregate price level is necessary in order test the empirical validity of Mises' theory.[1] In one such test, economist Paul Krugman wrote that the Austrian view of inflation is incorrect. He referred to a chart which showed that during the period from 2007 to late 2012, the monetary base increased by more than 350% with concomitant price inflation of less than 3% per year. According to Krugman, "If you believe that... expanding credit will simply result in too much money chasing too few goods, and hence a lot of inflation... the failure of high inflation to materialize amounts to a decisive rejection of that [Austrian] model".".[2]

If you were to propose that, I think that most of the editors here would accept it. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I have. My answer is no.
Also, I'm not sure why you keep proposing the Timberlake thing and the Krugman thing together instead of separately--these are separate issues. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 March 2013

References

  1. ^ Timberlake, Richard H. (September 1, 2000). "Austrian Inflation, Austrian Money, and Federal Reserve Policy". The Freeman. Retrieved 31 January 2013.
  2. ^ Paul Krugman, Varieties of Error http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/varieties-of-error/

Might I be a moderator / person near the middle?

I think you may mostly know where I stand:

  • I think that this article does a poor job of explaining Austrian School, so I remain a dummy on the topic. So this is the neutral position of pissing ALL of the editors off. :-)
  • I think that intelligent, well explained criticism by opponents of the Austrian School would be a good thing and would like to see it in the article. For example, taking high quality well-explained criticism by Krugman would be a good thing.
  • I think that the particular text as-is in the article / in question by Krugman sounds like a vague swipe and is not quality or explanatory material.

Might I be close enough to the middle to be a moderator? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd vote for you. Not that that counts for anything. 121.72.143.170 (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I would fully support you as well. -- Fsol (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
support this article was part of a long running dispute until an editor was topic banned from economics. now there is a clam moment, perhaps some real progress can be made, i suspect the editors here are not so far apart. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Principles section

I have removed the current Principles text from the article and pasted it below. If the article is to include such a summary, it needs a secondary reliable source. An earlier version of the article contained a shorter list, I believe by Bryan Caplan. There may be others we could consider as well. The current list reflects the views of WP editors as to the significant principles.

===Principles===
The main tenets of the Austrian School are generally considered to be:
  • The belief that economic analysis should begin by considering the purposeful actions of individuals and then proceed to study the social consequences of such actions.[1]
  • The belief that aggregate statistical models are not appropriate tools with which to model purposeful action or to analyze the economic results thereof.[1]
  • The theory that the way in which money is introduced into circulation has real, and not only nominal, economic effects.[2]
  • The theory that the cost of any activity should be measured by reference to the next best alternative.[
    better source needed][3]
  • The theory that, in a free market, interest rates and profits are determined by three factors: monetary returns from a change in the sales of a good or service, the marginal rate of return on a change in production inputs, and the time preferences of the individuals in the economy.[4]
  • The belief that markets would tend to clear if prices were allowed to adjust freely.[5]
  • The view that inflation should be defined to denote an increase in the
    credit) rather than a general increase in the price level.[6]
  • The
    credit by banks. According to the theory, excessive bank lending, at too low an interest rate, disturbs what would otherwise be a natural macroeconomic balance between saving and investment. This in turn causes businesses to make bad investments which subsequently become unprofitable and lead to recession.[7]
  1. ^ a b Austrian School of Economics: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
  2. ^ Patinkin, Don (1987). "Neutrality of Money" (Document). Palgrave. {{cite document}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  3. ^ "Opportunity Cost". Investopedia. Archived from the original on 14 September 2010. Retrieved 2010-09-18. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen Ritter von; Kapital Und Kapitalizns. Zweite Abteilung: Positive Theorie des Kapitales (1889). Translated as Capital and Interest. II: Positive Theory of Capital with appendices rendered as Further Essays on Capital and Interest.
  5. ^ Steven Kates, Two Hundred Years of Say's Law
  6. ^ The Theory of Money and Credit, Mises (1912, [1981], p. 272)
  7. ^ Theory of Money and Credit, Ludwig von Mises, Part III, Part IV

alt proposal

(in order of importance and all should be rephrased or attributed as none/few are mine)

  • laws of supply and demand
  • the cause of inflation
  • the operation of foreign exchange rates
  • the subjective nature of economic value
  • opposition to tax
  • opposition to price controls
  • opposition to regulations that inhibited enterprise (do not confuse with the The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire which was criminal and the owners liable under tort law, they mean a corporate tax code too long for any one person to read, etc)
  • support of protection of life, limb, and property under the law. (not to be confused with anarchist who want no government, this also means you cant consider other people your property or slave either.)
  • money creation disrupts prices.
  • the law of diminishing returns
  • things do not have inherent value, but have value only insofar as people desire them
  • separation of government and state (means either giving fedex equal privileges, or preferably doing away with the usps.)

much more if there is a positive response to the above, if not i yield and withdraw as if AS is not the above, i am too wrong to help here. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

AS economics is the belief that a free market will perform more efficiently than a central planned market and the recipients of the latter will always suffer a collective loss of potential wealth/quality of life.

The Bartlett issue

Again, the burden in on those who want inclusion and no one has even attempted to justify the inclusion of the Bartlett bit, even after I explained my objections on talk. Could we please take this out until someone makes a case for its inclusion? Furthermore, since the burden in on those wanting inclusion, I suggest anyone wanting the Bartlett bit in waits until I respond to their case (I have slighly more consistent internet access now). Byelf2007 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2013‎ (UTC)

Jeffrey Sachs criticism

In general criticism with Jeffrey Sachs and Sudha Shenoy it should be mentioned most of countries in mind (Scandinavian etc.) were not plagued by two world wars. (http://mises.org/daily/4146; http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx There is a lot of writen on this subject, for example William Easterly questions the validity of comparing poverty levels in the Nordic countries and the United States, when the former have been moving away from social planning toward a more market-based economy, and the latter has historically taken in impoverished immigrants - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116355956112023480.html?mod=opinion_main_commentariesSavo Gajic (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Norway & Denmark were invaded by Germany, Finland fought the USSR in the Continuation War and Winter War. Only Sweden escaped. Indeed, the Germans fought at Narvik to preserve access to Sweden's iron resources at Kiruna. I'd watchout for putting too much of our own spin on the reasons for poverty levels in Scandinavia. – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Right, I am aware of that. First they were "neutral" during ww1, second as far as I know those occupation in ww2 and their consequences are incomparable to a actual war devastation in countries that have had it (with exception of Finland). The point here is economical and social impact. These countries are not even mentioned in Aftermath of World War II So capital goods, population, etc. stayed for the most part intact, comparable to other countries. (Portugal, Spain and Switzerland also held their neutrality)
In articles posted are also other important points, as for example "The unfortunate misconception that the other Western countries are a lot more free-market oriented than Scandinavia.. .. massive Scandinavian welfare states can be considered among the "most free" countries in the world." AND "Although the United States ranks higher than these nations on the Index of Economic Freedom (not Denmark any more), Scandinavian nations are more free in several decisive areas. Denmark has greater business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom while having comparable property rights and trade freedom scores to the U.S. Sweden has greater business freedom and freedom from corruption, while having comparable trade freedom, monetary freedom, property rights enforcement, investment freedom, and financial freedom to the United States. Finland has greater business freedom, monetary freedom, and freedom from corruption than the United States, while having comparable property right enforcement, financial freedom, and trade freedom. Norway, the least successful Scandinavian nation, has greater freedom from corruption than the United States while having comparable business freedom, trade freedom, and property right enforcement. Iceland has greater business freedom, fiscal freedom, and freedom from corruption, while having comparable trade freedom and property right enforcement. In many ways, Scandinavian countries are more "laissez faire" than the United States."; etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savo Gajic (talk • contribs) 01:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

diamond-water paradox
, and 68kB is too long

  • 68kB is extremely long, remove trivia.
  • add
    diamond-water paradox
    to the article
  • add rephrased text from this passage of [3] the role of time in determining the value of goods. He viewed interest as the charge for the use of capital—a compensation to the owner for abstaining from present consumption. The rate of interest was determined by the size of the labour force, the amount of a community’s capital, and the possibility of increasing productivity through methods of production. to
    Austrian_School#Capital_and_interest
  • add rephrased text from this passage of [4] a complex economy cannot be rationally planned because true market prices are absent. As a result, the information critical for centralized planning cannot be obtained., proved by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A. Hayek.
  • contrast free market with price controls, regulation, Export subsidy and tax.
  • add money creation the process by which the money supply of a country or a monetary region (such as the Eurozone) is increased.
  • add diminishing returns
  • add laissez-faire, an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from tariffs, government subsidies, and enforced monopolies, with only enough government regulations sufficient to protect property rights against theft and aggression
  • add Parable of the broken window why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is actually not a net-benefit to society.
  • add Quantity theory of money if the currency in circulation increased, there would be a proportional increase in the price of goods.
  • contrast
    Exploitation theory and Positive Theory of Capital, see Capital and Interest
  • contrast fiat money and sound money, not to be confused with hard currency
  • add
    Misean Regression Theorem
  • add Coase theorem if trade in an externality is possible and there are no transaction costs, bargaining will lead to an efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property rights Darkstar1st (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • add Praxeology

Darkstar1st (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

misleading lead

[5]the value of a product, emphasized the importance of its utility to the consumer....value is completely subjective: a product’s value is found in its ability to satisfy human wants...If the product exists in abundance, it will be used in less-important ways. one click, simply elegant prose. compared to the current wp article which sends the reader to yet another article to learn the definition of Methodological individualism and gives no actual information as to what the theory means to the average reader, yet plenty of text is devoted to explaining the theory is considered flawed by many. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Not clear to me what you're driving at here, but the text above in italics is not what is meant by "methodological individualism." Also, the "subjective theory of value" is not considered flawed by many economists today. SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
i think we should change the lead to describe AS instead of referring readers to other pages and discussing the merits of AS. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Quantity theory of money was reverted

an editor has removed Quantity theory of money claiming it was OR.[6]. from Quantity theory of money, "if the currency in circulation increased, there would be a proportional increase in the price of goods." i added, commonly known as Quantity theory of money first noted by Copernicus to the existing Mises believed that money prices and wages will inevitably rise when the quantity of money and bank credit is increased. why exclude the common name of the theory described in the article, how is this OR? there is already a section above discussing the addition of this theory and no objection or claims of OR there. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

the editor also objected to the grammar but did not specify or attempt to correct the error. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Your addition violated
WP:PRIMARY. For information on how to cite a source, see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Additionally, your mention of Copernicus is inappropriate to the topic of the section, which is the Austrian view of inflation. — goethean
11:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
so if you only have fault with the copernicus part, plz self revert partially and restore the part about Quantity theory of money. i will attempt to find the page for you asap for the other. would you specify which grammar error/rule you meant?Darkstar1st (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't add unsourced material to Wikipedia. — goethean 12:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
no problem, i had no idea anyone would debate the definition of the theory, my fault. if this will suffice, plz partial self revert the non-Copernicus part and add this source [7] quantity theory of money, economic theory relating changes in the price levels to changes in the quantity of money. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Dark, the "quanitiy theory" as it's commonly understood is inimical to the Austrian tradition in economics. It does not describe or account for the market process or the individual actions or collateral economic factors which it would entail. The primary concern of Austrian monetary theory has been to elucidate changes in relative prices which result from changes in the availability of money and credit. For a good secondary discussion of these issues, see Economics as a Coordination Problem by Gerald P. O'Driscoll, Jr. or primary sources such as Hayek's Prices and Production. On a related note, to clarify my reason for moving the "Principles" list to the talk page: As currently constituted it is

WP:OR because it is editors' views of what comprise the important principles. We need a secondary source to make that determination. Your alternative list, without commenting on its merits, would also be editors' opinion rather than a secondary source. SPECIFICO talk
14:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

inimical no, nor is it beneficial, rather it is why prices increase when the supply of money increases, and quite germane to AS as AS is opposed to money creation for this very reason. since the theory is described in the section already, it only fitting it's proper and common name be linked here. It ("quantity theory"?) does not describe or account for the market process or the individual actions or collateral economic factors which it("quantity theory"?) would entail. this sentence confused me, could you dumb it down for me? The primary concern of Austrian monetary theory... exactly, per britannica, economic theory relating changes in the price levels to changes in the quantity of money. since that same exact passage is already in the section, ...prices and wages will inevitably rise when the quantity of money... why are you opposed to adding the link to the common name? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Specifico, its your opinion only ----Snowded TALK 15:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
the britannica definition of QT is my opinion? what do you mean? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
if you meant the Copernicus part, you are wrong again, Copernicus also became the first person to set forth clearly the "quantity theory of money," the theory that prices vary directly with the supply of money in the society. [8] An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. 1, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith. by Murray Rothbard. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
and [9] Early Beginnings of the Quantity Theory of Money and Their Context in Polish and Prussian Monetary Policies, c. 1520-1550 Oliver Volckart The Economic History Review New Series, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Aug., 1997), pp. 430-449 Published by: Wiley Darkstar1st (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

are the objecting editors satisfied?

here are 2 additional RS supporting the edit. if the reverting editor is now satisfied i ask he undo his revert, if not, is there a new objection or has the old not been addressed adequately?

  • Advanced Study in Money and Banking: Theory and Policy Relevance ..., Volume 2 By Perminder Khanna page 454, Nicolas Copernicus, the famous astronomer, has also been designated as the originator of the fundamental content of the quantity theory
  • According to Lambert, Copernicus is the first one to express the fundamental relation of the quantity theory. The quantity theory of money: a critical study of its historical development and interpretation and a restatement, page 14 by Hugo Hegeland A. M. Kelley, 1969. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning Copernicus in this article is completely off-topic. Please examine the link to Wikipedia policy that I provided above. — goethean 12:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

i simply disagree about off-topic as the theory is already mentioned, yet not by name for some reason. since it is in the article already, it only seems right to provide the link and attribution, agreed? you post a link to 4 policies, which do you feel is the most relevant after examining the additional sources i presented to address your concerns? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Copernicus has no relevance to the Austrian School of economics. None. — goethean 15:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Darkstar, you appear to have ignored my comment above: "Dark, the 'quantity theory'..." Please review that comment. Your text about Copernicus is

WP:OR, and incorrect. If you are interested in this topic I urge you to read the two references I provided on Austrian monetary theory. It's been a rich and significant area of study for the Austrian School, principally because it provided a more robust alternative to what was called the "quantity theory" in the 20th/21st centuries. SPECIFICO talk
13:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

i did read and replied. In two papers (one titled, "the
Austrian_School#Inflation
begins with Mises believed that money prices and wages will inevitably rise when the quantity of money and bank credit is increased.
Yes. That is not the "quantity theory of money." I'd thought I made that clear on several previous occasions. QT is inimical to Austrian theory. Mises is not talking about what is called the "Quantity Theory" in 20th/21st Century economics. You have no RS stating that Mises' view was what is known as the Quantity Theory of Money. That is your opinion or
WP:OR. Read the O'Driscoll and Hayek books to which I referred you. They are brilliant discussions of the role of money from an Austrian perspective. SPECIFICO talk
15:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to continue repeating myself. Please re-read
WP:OR. For your own edification, you could also read Friedman's "The Quantity Theory of Money, a Restatement" and compare it with the Hayek and O'Driscoll books to which I previously referred you. SPECIFICO talk
16:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Please give a citation for the paper to which you refer: <<Mises wrote a paper titled "Quantity Theory of Money">> Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
i did, Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism page 353 (3rd paragraph), By Guido Jörg Hülsmann, Jörg Guido Hülsmann. 2007 Darkstar1st (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
To the paper by Mises. BTW the Hulsmann volume published by Mises Institute is not
WP:RS on history of economic thought. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk
21:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
here it is repeated in his book: [10] section 6 The Quantity Theory One after another, the doctrine of supply and demand, the cost-of-production theory, and the subjective theory of value have had to provide the foundations for the quantity theory. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

So there you have Mises denouncing the "quantity theory" for the reason I stated twice above. Let's move on. How about working on the ABCT text here which is a bit of a tangle right now. There are many secondary sources available. That would really help improve the article. SPECIFICO talk 21:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

no, the source said he made the case for the quantity theory of money, see above. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing new to say, let's move on. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

results of No Original research noticeboard

[11] it was determined the edit was not OR. i would ask the editor to restore the properly sourced edit. (only 3 editors commented, 1 thought it was OR, 2, including me did not, then case was archived. feel free to resubmit the case if you feel the result was inconclusive, the edit can wait) Darkstar1st (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Dark, that link to the OR page does not determine that your edit was not OR. It does not support inclusion of the Copernicus text in Austrian School. (Incidentally, did you announce the OR forum case here? If so I missed that. More eyes on that thread might have generated more discussion for you on the OR page.) Anyway as previously stated, what is OR is your opinion that Mises view is "commonly known as Quantity theory of money first noted by Copernicus." You don't have a secondary RS which states that Mises' view and Copernicus' view are the same, nor that Mises' view is what's "commonly known as the Quantity theory of money." I think if you review the thread on talk here you'll see this covered. On the OR page, two or more comments pointed that out as well. It does not appear that the OR page thread determined anything in support of your proposed edit. Please leave the opening inflation sentence as it stands unless you can provide a secondary RS to support an edit. Let's work on improving the Business Cycle Theory section. It's still unclear and weakly cited. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 11:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
yes it does, if you wish to dispute the results, wouldn't that discussion be better held at the OR noticeboard? no i did not and the discussion had plenty of eyes, look at the history of the page several editors were active during the month it was there. talk discussion here does not determine what is or is not OR. the OR noticeboard commented i had presented several sources, more than enough to make the edit, maybe you should repost this case there, perhaps a second round would produce the results you feel correct. i will not change the article, rather i have ask the editor who made the revert to restore the text. should he or someone else not correct the edit, i will seek an appropriate forum to discuss that editors actions.(maybe the dispute resolution noticeboard, or where would you recommend?) Darkstar1st (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm not disputing the result, I am saying you misstated the result. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
no, i put a link to the edit which was determined to not be OR. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:HEAR Thanks. SPECIFICO talk
14:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
i heard you the first time, i presented the edit to the appropriate venue which disagreed with your opinion. you disagree with the results and may choose to re-post the edit at the OR noticeboard, or instead continue restate your opinions here which does not appear to be the correct venue. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
As has been conveyed to you many times, the material on which you have focused laser-like is completely off-topic for this article. This article is about the Austrian School of economics. Feel free to add the material to a more appropriate article. Also, the next time that you take an issue to a forum, you should notify involved editors. Your decision to avoid notifying editors involved in the discussion, and then your bringing the results here after the thread has been archived, is contrary to
WP:CIVIL and common courtesy. One really wonders how you think ambushing surprising us like this is going to help your case. — goethean
14:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
plz afg and avoid using battleground words like ambush. if you wish, repost the edit to the noticeboard and pospone your revert until a new decision can be reached, or a clarification of the current decision can be provided at that venue. it sounds like you now have a different reason to oppose the edit other than OR. is completely off-topic for this article, if this is the case, please be specific about which policy you mean and i will attempt to address that concern as well. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I have struck out the offending word and replaced it with a synonym. That the material is completely off topic to this article, apart from being completely obvious, is not a new reason; I've told you that multiple times before. — goethean 15:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Would you send me a link to the specific policy you are citing? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
And, if one reviews the OR page, the thread shows that several editors there stated the same to Darkstar1st. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
you are mistaken, it is actually the same lone editor with the objection, which was described as, It reads like a personal power struggle to "win" (or refuse to "lose") rather than a discussion of OR Darkstar1st (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

TFD and Paul B both question whether your Copernicus is relevant to the Austrian school article. The only other editor there is you. Don't tell us that thread determined that you should reinsert your Copernicus text here. You didn't even request a close of your OR thread, humble though it may have been. SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

i dont think the editor is going to revert, i will bring this up at the appropriate venue. do you have any suggestions of where we should resolve this debate? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup on Austrian Economics

(copied from my talk page)

If you're interested in helping me do this, and drawing the distinction between the two strains of Austrianism, this debate on Austrianism published by the Cato Institute is a good place to start. http://www.cato-unbound.org/issues/september-2012/theory-practice-austrian-school Steve Horwitz, who is a strident critic of the Mises Institute crew, is a paradigmatic example of the Hayekian Austrian. He 1) puts some stock in deductive reasoning (from common sense premises about human action, such as marginal utility maximization) as a source of economic truth but does not think this method is infallible/that even the common sense claims should go untested or always apply and 2) worries about empirical models for Hayekian, information coordinator esque reasons, but does not reject empiricism categorically or in principle and 3) publishes (unlike North, Hoppe, and most LvMI scholars) in mainstream journals using accepted methodologies. Steeletrap (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a huge task. First, the article misstates the "Austrian business cycle theory" and that section should be rewritten using secondary RS material. The Austrians who trained in Vienna after WW1 for the most part did not try to keep separate from academic economics but joined LSE, Princeton, Harvard and other such institutions. Their work there shows the approach of individualism, subjectivism, etc. but not theoretical isolationism, rejection of scientific method etc. Then we have the neo-Austrians who gathered at Cato and Mises Institute, and we have the academic Austrians at NYU, George Mason, and scattered other distinguished venues. Finally we have interested non-economists who cite or sometimes mis-cite various principles they associate with Austrian School thinking. There are also a number of academics from other fields who are referred to as Austrian economists but are rather social theorists, historians or philosophers of various kinds. I'll copy this to the AS article. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
What is disturbing is that many (most) of the contemporary Austrian "economists" with WP entries are not those Austrians who are quietly devoting themselves to academic lives/publishing in peer review journals, but rather "celebrities" like Gary North, Hoppe, and Robert Murphy, who either have never or have barely (and not for years) published in mainstream journals, but are associated with the
Argumentation Ethics", which he truly believes literally proves that everyone who disagrees with him on politics is literally irrational, and for his criticism of Democracy as inferior to monarchy, but not for any substantive contribution to mainstream (economic) academic journals/discourse) and mentioned in a ton of internet blog posts. Steeletrap (talk
) 16:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, regardless of whether that is disturbing I think the various groups need to be sorted out and the schism described in the article. However a greater concern is the lack of coverage of the important mainstream Austrian economic work that is not yet covered here. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
As you know as an economist, a lot of great scholars who have done the hard empirical work and made crucial contributions for years are often obscure to the general public if they have not received some sort of popular platform for expressing their views. That is likely the case with the scholarly Austrians you refer to. (whereas the LvMI/LRC Austrians gained public prominence by being tied to an institution that provides intellectual heft for anarcho-capitalism (which while fringe, has an ardent popular following) and Ron Paul's 2008/2012 Presidential campaign.) Such changes should be made, because as of now the characterization of modern and historical Austrianism on this page sounds like it was written by the Mises Institute. Steeletrap (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is tempting to a certain number of academics to seek the limelight or the financial support of non-scholarly sidelines. This takes many forms, from consulting jobs, to corporate- and government-funded university research, think tanks, mass-market book publishing and many others. What's important is just to be clear about what's what and who's who and why. SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think a well-sourced discussion of the fact that the notability of many LvMI-associated Austrian economists stems from their associations with Ron Paul/anarcho-capitalist political movements (rather than academic work in the traditional sense) could shed a lot of light on these issues, and help clarify the divide. The facts about their rise to prominence can, I contend, be presented without rendering judgment on the soundness of the thought of these sort of "populist" economists. Steeletrap (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Here is an interesting comment form Steven Horwitz, one of the Austrians who does publish (fairly prolifically) in mainstream journals, that sheds some light on the differences between more academically-oriented Austrians and the Mises Institute crowd. Of the latter, Horwitz says, "they ... [have] public outreach, publish online, provide resources on their website and are involved in broader libertarian politics. The folks at the Mises Institute are more skeptical about academia; they tend not to believe that that’s where the fight is. They don’t try to engage the mainstream in economics. They are in their own world with respect to academic economics. It did surprise me somewhat that they were upset given that they haven’t made academics their primary focus and GMU has. But, hey, who’s leading the charge in academia; it’s these guys over here [George Mason University-connected Austrian economists].” (see: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2012/09/07/bryan-caplan/horwitz-economy-empirics) Steeletrap (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
side-comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Given the number of notable libertarians and Austrian economists who get involved in both Cato and Mises activities/writing/etc. without seeing the need for divisive schisms, I hope people aren't trying to impose divisive schisms but by using one or two articles by people with whatever biases as the basis for dividing up this article or creating a POV fork or finding new ways to engage in character assassination via guilt by association of various individuals. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Carolmooredc, your comment violates
site policy: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. . Please present your specific concerns about content and do nor refer to your feelings ("hope") about other unnamed editors or insinuate that unnamed editors have previously "engage[d] in character assassination..." Moreover, the premise of your statement: "Given...schisms," is false. SPECIFICO talk
20:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I am really controlling self and not listing all the diffs that prove my fears may be real. (See Help:Diff if you need to learn how to use them to prove points.) Of course, achieving goals stated above would take quite a depth of research and it would be good to see such constructive activity. I'll just watch the edits and hopefully neither I or anyone else will see anything to complain about. CarolMooreDC🗽 00:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
lol. Steeletrap (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the number of notable libertarians and Austrian economists who get involved in both Cato and Mises activities/writing/etc. I think you'll need a lot of sources who either do not have a major axe to grind or whose biases are clearly stated to do that. If there is a thought to starting a separate article to separate the different viewpoints, please be aware of policy on

Wikipedia:Content forking. CarolMooreDC
13:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"the purposeful actions of individuals" WP:EGG

is neither the common name of the article to which it directs, nor is mentioned in any of the four sources. i suggest we change this link to the common name Methodological individualism, and remove the four references or clarify which page of each supports the edit. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the redlink from the section heading. Does "this link" refer to a particular link in the article? (If you are referring to an article redlink, it can be de-linked.) Please clarify. – S. Rich (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC) And now, having scanned the article, I don't see any redlinks. 18:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
i made it that way on purpose :) read the first line of the article, let me know if you find anything you would change. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I see you fixed the
WP:EGG. I've fixed the redlink above. – S. Rich (talk
) 18:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Specifico, please go back and do a self-revert [12]. your edit summary is misleading, you actually reverted then re-reverted the egg. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The first line of the lede looks good now. No EGG, and methodolgical gobblede-gook is linked later on in the article. Let's leave it as is now. – S. Rich (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but none of the refs mention that phrase(or gobbledeology) apparently, perhaps you could point me to the specific passage i missed in all 4? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Srich, please provide which page number/source you are citing to remove the failed verification tag. neither the phrase nor the ology appear in any of the sources given that i could find. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Darkstar, I have left a note on your talk page. SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It is necessary to read the cited sources in the article before asserting that they fail verification or are missing for a given statement in the text. In addition to the four cited sources after the first sentence, there is the cited source currently note 12 in the Methodogy section. The lede summarizes content in the article, so the footnote 12 also supports the first sentence. Please be careful to read the sources and text before tagging, which may lead to unnecessary effort by other editors. SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

i did read the sources and am asking for the specific page/s supporting the opening sentence. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Krugman: WP:OR on inflation rate? Better summary

The past Krugman RfCs/discussions said keep mention of his criticism in the article and I support keeping it in, since he's notable and its relevant, if somewhat confusing and non-profound. However, I can't find a coherent discussion of either issue below since people seemed to focus on the "in or out" issue.

At this diff] an editor put back what looks like an unsourced statement about the inflation rate. I see the citation needed has been left in. (Keeping nicely filled out references would be nice.)

Is this actually sourced by that chart? If so, the article needs to explain why in a foot note for the average person. Not all readers are economic statisticians who can figure out these charts or where in the heck it says "concomitant price inflation of less than 3% per year." It took me a couple takes just to find the description of the red line relating to the Consumer Price Index, but why the heck is it on same axis and approaching 120? How does that translate to 3%? (And the other one is closer to 320 than 350).

Wikipedia is written for average readers and not just for economists who can read complex charts and/or think some information is "common knowledge". Please explain where the inflation rate comes from, find another source or leave it out as

WP:Original research
.

Also, the quote just makes people wonder - what the heck are they hiding in between those ellipsis which encompass two different paragraphs? It reads: "If you believe that... expanding credit will simply result in too much money chasing too few goods, and hence a lot of inflation...

So let's merge my version and the above to explain better both the context and what he wrote. Something like: In 2012 economist Paul Krugman criticized Peter Schiff and other Austrians who had been predicting "runaway inflation", i.e, that "expanding credit will simply result in too much money chasing too few goods". Krugman writes that the failure of high inflation to materialize amounts to a decisive rejection of that [Austrian] model". CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Open a new RfC if you wish, but until you understand both the history of the discussion here and the chart and the substance of the text, do not remove the consensus text. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
So you won't even explain why you left the citation needed? I'll have to assume you agree with me. If you do not, a one sentence answer is the collaborative way to go. Or I can read all of the discussions and quote every relevant one and see if they make any sense whatsoever. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Past discussions of the diff

I was not aware of or involved in discussions below. I recently skimmed the article and the diff in question stuck out like a naked streaker, especially once I looked at the source itself. Having now read every discussion of the various Krugman entries from the first archive, I can now quote the one relevant mention in Wikipedia policy terms as opposed to various editors' personal opinions on Krugman's interpretation of Austrian economics. (I did not track any possible edit war edit summary "policy arguments"):

  • Two December discussions were about accuracy of Krugman's analysis (
    a Dec 2012 RfC whose close read
    : Consensus is to Include Krugman's inflation critique, cited with reliable sources (ie, not a blog); however, the criticism should not be written in the encyclopedic voice, but should specifically attribute the perspective, eg "One criticism of the Austrian theory, by Paul Krugman, is that blah blah blah"... (Note, I do agree with close.)
  • Jan 2013, Current diff first mentioned
    at talk with no discussion of it.
  • Talk:Austrian_School/Archive_10#A_Krugman-inflation_issue: only explicit policy-related discussion quoted below in bold (regarding this source
    ):

In it's current form, the page has the '350%/3%' bit which is not in the cited source. I'm also alarmed at how it seems to imply that Krugman is saying the Austrians are wrong because we haven't seen 350% inflation from money sitting in banks. So the page, as is, basically makes Krugman look like a total moron. Could we please take this out or re-write it (w/ a source) so that it doesn't make it look like Krugman is saying this? Byelf2007 (talk) 16 February 2013

There's currently consensus for the version that is in the article. Unless there develops an objectively demonstrated consensus to replace it with another version, the answer to your question is no. If you review the talk thread you'll see that the 350/3 bit was discussed. The numbers come from the clearly labeled graph which appears in the cited source. I don't find it constructive or relevant for you to suggest that anyone has made Krugman look like a total moron. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the graph has the data, and yes, the graph is discussed on the page, but where on the page does Krugman 'point out' that the 'MB has increased by 350%' while 'inflation has only increased by 3%'. I don't see that anywhere. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 February 2013
As always, if you disagree with the consensus, including the numbers, you are free to seek a specific alternative consensus. You've already stated various and sundry reasons why you don't like the consensus, but your only recourse is to demonstrate a specific new consensus of the editors here. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
You are implying the existence of a non-existent consensus. Time to start talking about the merits of the issues at hand. North8000 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC) [Remaining discussion not relevant]

Problems

  • Maybe Byelf2007 and SPECIFICO can figure out that the graph says what SPECIFICO says it says - but I bet a WP:RSN would not find a non-economist/mathematician who could figure out why. Wikipedia is not just for PhDs.
  • Byelf2007 is correct that Krugman does not make that point. It seems it is WP:OR since WP:RS not clear. And we don't know who - NY Times or Krugman - decided to put in that graph.
  • Even if there was a consensus to use that material, which I did not find, consensus can't over ride WP:NPOV or WP:RS or making the encyclopedia comprehensible to your average high school graduate (which is a high standard in the US).
  • There was very general discussion of whether Krugman's quote interpreted Austrian economics properly, but I found no discussion of whether the quote reflected Wikipedia quoting policy, which I doubt since it is draw from two different paragraphs. This seems to be an intersection of WP:OR and WP:RS, so I'd be inclined to check it out at WP:RSN. Well, I'll give it a couple days and see if anyone else chimes in. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
If the problem is with exact numbers, I see no problems with stating that money base has increased several-fold, with concomitant very low inflation rates. The graph makes this clear. Alternatively/also, we can stick the graph Krugman used into the article, since FRED is a federal institution and so all works are public domain. LK (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Krugman's argument is a clever ruse. Austrians think money creation the process by which the money supply is increased, causes inflation, Krugman is referring to the Monetary base, which is an insignificant amount comparatively. It is like saying rainfall has increased 350%, yet the river is up only 3%. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's avoid whether he's right cause that's been discussed ad nauseum. (I won't share my "they are both part right" viewpoint.) The only issues are: a) did he put that graph in - does he mention it? Rereading again, don't see that. Just like editors often insert titles and we avoid using them as "refs" in news/magazine articles, editors insert graphics; b) nevertheless, I don't necessarily have a problem with inserting it if it says "accompanying graph says" - but also the graph has to be comprehensible. How does less than 80 on the left axis translate into 3 percent? I'm sure that's a mystery to lots of people. Does one have to take an advanced statistics course to figure it out? Can't a more scholarly discussion of problems with the theory be found. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 11:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, and it is impossible to determine, whether Krugman put the graph in. The graph accompanies his article in its published form, period. There is no reason to, and no ability to attempt to distinguish what the newspaper editorial inserted versus what the author "actually wrote". The published work is what is being cited and the published work contains the graph, whether it says explicitly says "see the graph" or not. This argument has exactly zero merit. — goethean 14:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The graph, clearly attributed, is also clearly labeled and is known by the NY Times to be intelligible to its readers. If for whatever reason a WP editor does not function at that same level of numeracy, their personal difficulties with the graph do not constitute an argument against inclusion of the graph or its data in the article. SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC?

We should distill this down to one or two clear questions and do an RFC. North8000 (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't have a shortage of solutions. We have lack of a problem. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that saying that is to be expected from the folks on the side of the debate that prefers it as-is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
North, old friend. You know that ad hominems are not permitted here. Why don't you state the problem which you believe requires an RfC. Problem with the article, not the editors. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
You are mis-defining my comment as ad hominem / claiming problem with the editor. It's only human & normal (not all that nasty stuff) for the person who prefers the status quo to say that there is no problem. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No sir. I did not mean to say your ad hominem was a nasty ad hominem, but it is nevertheless ad hominem insofar as it did not refer to the content of the article, its text, and all like that. You've still said nothing unkind, nasty and so forth, and we are still good friends, however in the meantime you have done another ad hominem so now you are a civil and friendly two-for-two. Argumentum ad hominem does [20:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)(correction per below:)] not entail malicious intent, just irrelevance. Anyway, if there's to be an RfC at some point somebody will need to state the issue, and the issue cannot be that an editor is uncomfortable reading simple graphs and charts. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem does entail malicious intent
You mean does not entail malicious intent. — goethean 20:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
And this chart is not in this article, it is in an article which this article refers too, correct? If so, then this is a really bizarre objection. Now we have to dumb down the sources? We have Wikipedia articles which refer to peer-reviewed academic journals. Undoubtedly there are plenty of Wikipedia readers who cannot comprehend such sources. There is no requirement that sources be dumbed-down to any level. I've heard a lot of crazy arguments, but this one takes the cake. — goethean 20:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
This one takes the sachertorte. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Goethean: if the sources themselves are problematic, like maybe some NY Times intern mish mash of Fed Reserve graphics, do you really want to be defending them? see below. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽

WP:RSN discussion

I can see this will lead to the same old soapbox discussions, so put the very narrow issues here. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Two_questions_about_if_economic_chart_RS. Please address them only and in a civil fashion. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Check out another users comments on why using that NY Times-created(?) graphic not appropriate. (OR do I have to quote it here? Mocking attempts to get info on WP:RS really is problematic behavior.)
Why not use Dec 2011 statistics from first Krugman article and 2012 comment from second? Why go against policy by using WP:OR/synth?? It's not like it's making your case that much stronger, just one more evidence of refusal to follow basic policy... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Since this is a somewhat technical subject, in addition to one editor quoted below, I've posted to two wikiprojects that deal with statistics/economics to look at WP:RSN notice. Now how do you all debate this? Let's not forget Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If you don't respond with a rational response that doesnt make jokes about pastry, I have to assume you agree with me :-)
That graph as published in the NYT really shouldn't be used as a Wikipedia source for making a statement that is precise down to 3% because the markers on the Y axis are not that precise, and Krugman doesn't explicitly say anything about 3% in the accompanying text. As I understand it, the Y axis starts at 80 instead of 0 because it's an index, with the baseline set at 100 (which falls conveniently between 80 and 120). I assume it's done that way because there are two disparate kinds of data being plotted on the same graph, so the data needed to be normalized to appear together. A reader can eyeball the graph and get a ballpark idea of changes that occurred (eg, the "monetary base tripled"), but being more precise than that would be inappropriate. Dezastru (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Thoughts? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

So what is the error?

I've already pointed out the WP:RS problem with your chart. Yet here I paraphrase what he said and you revert (asking for discussion to get consensus, even as your refuse to engage in discussion. Disruptive edit warring anyone?) What is the error with this? If I've made one, tweak it til we get it right.

Economist Paul Krugman has argued against Austrian views on inflation. In late 2011 he pointed out that the monetary base had tripled in the previous three years, but the average annual inflation rate was only 1.5 percent. There was no "devastating inflation" as predicted by Austrians.[1] In late 2012 he wrote: "If you believe that... expanding credit will simply result in too much money chasing too few goods, and hence a lot of inflation...[Then] the failure of high inflation to materialize amounts to a decisive rejection of [the Austrian] model."[2]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmooredc (talk • contribs) 20:52, June 13, 2013

Synth is correct tag for this?

SRich removed unreliable source [clarify:tag]- which was pointed at the graphic. I guess Synth is better; maybe that's what I had before. If that doesn't suit you, please reply here as to what does. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I assume you mean I removed the {{
unreliable source}} tag, not any actual source. – S. Rich (talk
) 17:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Austrian tenets list WP:OR

It really is WP:OR for editors to decide what the main tenets of a philosophy/ideology/school/etc. are. Examples of Secondary sources that list characteristics are:

Just for starters. So it's good to make sure the current list is related to the good sources like those above, in some way so it's not just editor

WP:OR. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie
🗽 23:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Restructuring - 2 issues

Well, it's obvious that I finally broke down and read the article more thoroughly, instead of dealing with a few issues that stuck out from time to time. There are two issues:

Theory or history first

I see that economic theories based on one person, like the constructivist theories of Marxian economics or Keynesian economics, go straight to describing theory; but those based more on a historical evolution, like Scholasticism, Anarchist economics, Physiocracy, Classical economics, American_School_(economics) put history first. (Articles on other schools tend to be mixed or not have a history section at all.) How else but in a history section will we understand how tenets evolved and how they may influence any current differences among members of the school??

Unless there is a "Mr. Austrian" hiding up someone's sleeve, it would seem history of "Austrian economics/school" should go first with just a lead explanation of the basic tenets.

Looking at archives since the theory section so massively expanded in last 10 months or so, I didn't notice this issue discussed. If we can't get agreement here, an RfC might be in order.

Therefore the proper structure would be:

  1. Lead includes short listing of main tenets which will be explained later
  2. Etymology
  3. History (with current sectioning)
  4. Influence
  5. Tenet details (need good section header)
  6. Criticism section (or integrate into above?)

Criticism inside theory sections or separately?

Research into archives shows this discussion happened repeatedly and given that criticism is all over the place, I don't think it was definitively settled. I personally don't care about in which criticism goes, just as long as it's not in both places and is not WP:Undue or misrepresented.

Yes, it might take a couple hours of work - not to mention finding more secondary sources for the views as opposed to the summaries of primary sources. But it's worth it for a good article, don't you think? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal from lead of WP:RS info on Austrian school supporting free market

At this diff User:SPECIFICO removed the following with the edit summary:Remove weasel. Moreover, the policy views of particular Austrian economists are not the topic of the article.

Despite differences among them, their views are seen as supporting
private enterprise.[5]
  1. ^ Krugman, Paul (Dec. 15. 2011). "G.O.P. Monetary Madness". NY Times. Retrieved 11 June 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Paul Krugman, Varieties of Error, 2012.
  3. ^ Raico, Ralph (2011). "Austrian Economics and Classical Liberalism". mises.org. Mises Institute. Retrieved 27 July 2011. despite the particular policy views of its founders ..., Austrianism was perceived as the economics of the free market
  4. ISBN 978-0-521-63765-7
    . Retrieved 15 June 2013.
  5. ^ Robert W. Kolb, Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society, Volume 1, SAGE, 2008, p 127, ISBN 1412916526

Now this was just a first draft, and "private enterprise" was only used by one source so I can see removing that. Weasel words can be ameliorated. But two of the sources are encyclopedias so I don't see how they qualify as "particular Austrian economists" and Raico was good enough as a source later - in fact his footnote was the only time free market was mentioned in the whole article!

I'll present more high quality sources illustrating its a central position that belongs in the lead - and in a relevant section. (While I'm researching sources that actually discuss what the tenets are per

Chicago School of Economics article manages to mention it a few times. Perhaps User:SPECIFICO could explain?? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie
🗽 04:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Two groups of Austrians

There appear to be two main strains of Austrianism. One, associated with Nobel Laureate

F.A. Hayek, is skeptical of mainstream economic models for pragmatic reasons related to Economic calculation problem. That is to say, there are too many variables governing human action to ensure that statistical models hoping to explain it will not be bunk. These "Austrians" believe in employing a deductive, logical method to understand economics, and think that such methodology -- logical reasoning based on common sense assumptions about utility maximizing, rational choice, and so forth -- can sometimes yield economic truth. However, these convictions are not absolute. Deductive reasoning is not sufficient to prove economic truth and a model with enough predicative validity can (in these scholars' view) be said to be sound. This tradition -- which houses not only Hayek but (in my estimation) Menger
, Bohm-Bawerk, and other crucial thinkers -- strikes me as clearly falling within the purview of mainstream academic dissent. It is a minority position but is not only regarded seriously by the mainstream but is, from what I understand, widely held to have made substantive contributions to mainstream discourse.

The other strain of Austrianism, associated with

substance dualism (and indeed, these sorts of Austrians often call themselves "epistemological dualists.") These folks -- almost all of whom are radical libertarians or anarchists -- like to wrap themselves in the veneer of Hayek (to get his mainstream support), but also deride him as a "social democrat" for (based on sound empirical reasons) supporting generous funding for education, infrastructure, public health, and so forth. (for example, see this article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe: http://mises.org/daily/5747/Why-Mises-and-not-Hayek
)

This article needs to draw a distinction between the two types of Austrians. I really hope someone with knowledge/respect for both mainstream economics and this particular tradition can do that. Steeletrap (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this article should explicitly discuss the differences among Austrians today. For that reason, don't think the recent additions of material on Block and Rockwell, particularly in the lede, are a good idea unless and until the distinctions among Austrians are established in the text. Also, Rockwell is not an economist and I don't believe his opinion is worth including in the article, except as it may arise in a narrative about the Mises' Institute's claim to be the hub of Austrian Economics. The Bohm-Bawerk addition, I think, is clearer than before. SPECIFICO talk 01:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I think you have a point. My editions are informative about one strain of Austrianism (that associated with the (in my view, hucksterish) scholars at the Mises Institute) but not the other one. While Block (and Buchanan/Becker) appear to be talking about Austrianism generally in that piece, the reading I've done on this matter would imply that they are talking about one subset of the school. (i.e. that associated with LvMI, Rockwell, Gary North, and Ron Paul for President) I think deleting the Block additions for now while planning to include them at a later point is the appropriate the ideal response. And thank you for the comment re my Bohm-Bawerk changes! Steeletrap (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There are some recent secondary discussions of the split on the Mises and Cato websites. [13] [14] SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation for named individuals?

I see User:Specifico reverted at this diff the listing of who was allegedly affiliated with what grouping. Please be aware of
WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle since not discussing and just reverting a revert is considered WP:Edit warring
.
Anyway, the material on individuals is still unsourced. Even if their Wiki articles explicitly note these affiliations, which most probably do not, if a ref is requested, you must provide it. Thus citation needed tag. (And it is a BLP issue since some might not like being put in an either/or camp.) Also the colleges are irrelevant unless WP:RS explains relevance or perhaps if specific individuals are linked to them. Thus dubious tag, though WP:SYNTH also might be relevant. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I see SRich added to dubious "two groups" - that is fine too since includes the idea of splitting up colleges/universities, and again with no refs, in a WP:OR fashion. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 16:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
side discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Now that SPECIFICO has mentioned the 21st C split, I think grouping those Hayekian/Hayekean & Misesean/Misesian (and/or Rothbardian) contributors (in the following sentence) would be helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Regarding comment on "hucksterish) scholars at the Mises Institute" and other detailed negative opinions of individuals, here and elsewhere, let me remind editors of:
WP:BLP
policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.
Wikipedia:Soapbox#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox
policy: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: (Please read five sections below that.)
Thanks for your attention to these policy matters. CarolMooreDC🗽 21:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. — goethean 21:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Carolmooredc, the article talk page should not be used for personal remarks. Your statements above may be viewed as personal attacks and harassment. Please confine your remarks on the talk page to content. The editor whom you just addressed has not added any such content. Use of the article talk page for personal remarks is disruptive to editing here. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Claim

I don't think that "on the other hand" in this context is anything more than a transition between two clearly differing viewpoints on a detail of descriptive theory. No claim involved, per guidance cited. Also if you are uneasy with 'purported' there still needs to be some indication that "malinvestment" is Murray's idea, not an observable fact. It could be "the investment which Rothbard asserts is really malinvestment that must be liquidated before the economy can resume productive activity..." etc. but frankly purported seems to do a better job. Anyway if there's something you prefer, please propose but we can't say that the malinvestment is an empirical reality. It's a theoretical construct that views certain investments in a certain way. For example, the Empire State Building, George Washington Bridge, and other late 1920's edifaces would be termed malinvestment by Rothbard's view but they're still doing fine and he's six feet under. Anyway, please propose some language you prefer. SPECIFICO talk 00:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC) I think I fixed it now. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Your off-the-cuff put down of Rothbard is inapposite for the following reasons: (1) people die, buildings don't, so your comparison is not just wrong, it isn't even funny (2) the examples you use are incorrect. The Empire State Building was a private enterprise during a time of relative monetary stability (compared to today). Better examples of "malinvestment" would be housing caused by Freddie and Fannie and the government-supported bond market from 2007-2013 (which is collapsing before our eyes now). To use the example of the Empire State Building as a "prime" example shows you don't quite understand the concept. It is investment induced through distorting and extreme credit creation encouraged by mispricing of interest rates by central planners/bankers. So housing prior to 2007 and bond prices today would be much better examples. Hope this has been educative... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.135.50 (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Au contraire, NSW, according to Murray the easy credit of the 20's led to rampant malinvestment and caused the dust bowl, etc. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
You must have skim read MR's America's Great Depression. Yes, that is accurate but misleading. There is malinvesment everywhere during periods of credit growth but the examples you use are tiny and trivial compared to the vast "bulk" of malinvestments, so it may give people the impression that the Empire State Building is a symbol of malinvestment when it wasn't. The 1920s stockmarket generally certainly was. MR identifies capital goods industries (steel etc) as subject to the most "intense" malinvestment in the 1920s. And given the credit growth figures post-August 1971 have far exceeded the 1920s, any Austrian with an IQ above single digits would conclude that recent "malinvestment" must - must - be magnitudes higher than the 1920s. See for example this piece from R. Landis, who does a nice job applying MR's "old" analysis to modern times (where the massive scale of worldwide malinvestment is much more pronounced). To quote him:
"No, the die is cast: we shall have the catastrophe. Our fiat monetary system got a reprieve in the 1980's, not a deliverance. All that has happened since, with the fantastic mispricing of credit the Greenspan Fed has engineered, and the massive global malinvestment this has engendered, is that the dimensions of the unraveling have become more dire."
Why focus on a tiny blip in history (Empire State Building, built by private business) when we're currently living in the biggest cycle of worldwide malinvestment in world history? At least according to Austrian Landis. Question: is this a "reliable" reference? Or does it only become reliable once the government bond market collapses worldwide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.135.50 (talk • contribs) ≈18:55 (PDT), June 19, 2013‎
FYI, whether or not you are correct (besides the disrespecting Rothbard part, which obviously you are), in wikipedia to prove a point we have to a) have a source that refers to "Austrian School/economics" and b) be non-self-published, except in some cases where it's a noted expert, usually academic and c) follow a bunch of other policies too. It can take a while to learn them and even then you sometimes have to spend far too much time talking about edits than doing research and editing. It's a commitment to learning the process to have a positive effect. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry, it's just a soapbox. Rothbard predeceased the dotcom era or else he would have chimed in on whether Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon and all the plasma TVs, not to mention all the hydro-fracked gas fields, will need to be liquidated -- them being just all the malinvestments of the post-gold standard easy money daze of fiat credit addiction. Maybe this thread should be hatted, OT. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree it's a soapbox. You're the one standing on it, pontificating about what a ghost would say about the current state of the economy. Perhaps you'll get off it shortly once the bond market collapses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.135.50 (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"Removing unsourced content"

According to the history, at 14:34 on Jun 20, 2013 SPECIFICO "Removing unsourced content." What actually happened was a revert to text that does not in any way match the sources cited to support the claims made. The text was changed from a heavily point of view pushing text to more neutral text that actually matches the sources already cited in the article. SPECIFICO then changed the more neutral text back to the heavily point of view pushing text and passed that action off as "Removing unsourced content." This is a glaring example of dishonest and inappropriate editing. --Abel (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Just so we can understand and comment, I hope you won't mind if I include full relevant changes:
  1. So there's the issue of Specifico ignoring BRD in a non-BLP related article.
  2. Also his saying something is unsourced where there are four sources used, so who knows which says what and what's unsourced. (Except the long quote from Bryan Caplan's self-published paper on his website which I think is over-used in this article.) That's what he should have explained in discuss.
  3. So the issues should be, a) is this a place in the lead for noting what the criticism is and b) what sources actually are relevant and should be used and how? CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 05:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying Carol. That was a lot of work and did a vastly superior job of laying out the problem. Abel (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I do think a paragraph on criticism is in order. But it should make clear what sources are saying what. I'm way behind on several other edits on this article, not to mention related BLPs, not to mention the six or seven unfinished re-writes to sections and even articles on completely different topics, so feel free to take a wack at it. And even preview it here and then when a few of us agree (and who knows, Specifico even may respond) then it safely can be put up, hopefully without a revert whose merits can be evaluated at that time. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I can't say if the reverts created the messy read of the article or not, but the article reads more like a debate than an informative encyclopedic article. Many sections seems to state a basic premise of Austrian Economics, and then have some sort of following refutation from another school of thought. It isn't an issue of bias one way or the other (in my opinion) but it is really a disjointed read. I've rarely struggled to read an article as much as I have this one. 69.14.148.16 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austrian_school_of_economics/Archive_11&oldid=1146726426"