Talk:Austrian school of economics/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Is there any well founded argument against including the whole sale and well sourced refutation of the WSJ article? Misessus (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You might have to link to the version you mean, or put the text of the refutation here, but what I believe I saw should be excluded as

WP:OR. CRETOG8(t/c

) 22:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What was OR about it? I both defined economic prediction (and sourced it) and demonstrated that the prediction had been and is being verified to this day by referencing to CNN. Where is the OR? Misessus (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, you might need to link to the exact version so we know we're talking about the same thing. What you describe above sounds like OR, though. Did CNN say "Schiff was criticized for his false predictions, but was actually correct"? CRETOG8(t/c) 22:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Schiff was vindicated by the fact that the USD lost value. What is it that determines whether Schiff is right or not? The fact that the USD lost value throughout 2009 to this day, or that CNN specifically says he was right? Why isn't the well documented decline of the dollar proof enough? Misessus (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you read

WP:OR yet? The conclusion itself should be sourced (shouldn't be hard to do, I've read it many times myself elsewhere). Gwen Gale (talk

) 22:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing in the OR that disqualifies Thomas Woods or CNN. Can you maybe explain? The conclusion was that Schiff's prediction was right, and the proof is in the documented decline of teh dollar, which was sourced. Misessus (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, he was right. For the article to carry it, one must cite a source which says so straightforwardly (as I said, I've seen lots of sources on this elsewhere, so it shouldn't be hard to do). One cannot cite what he said, then cite that the dollar went down, then write that PS predicted it, that's synthesis, original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just want to add a third voice to say that GG and Cretog8 are correct. If you have a source that says "The prediction was proved correct, albeit on a slightly different timeframe", then lets include that. If you have to put together two different sources to show that, in fact, the prediction was right, then what I suggest you do is to take that documentation, write a great research paper and have it published in an academic journal, book, or similar place. Because that's simply not what Wikipedia does. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to simply add:

"The WSJ article was published January 30th, 2009 during the dollar rally. Schiff's prediction came true later in in 2009 with gold hitting a historic record high in November 2009 ^[1], a deveolopment which has continued ever since with the dollar making record lows against gold ^[2], other commodities and currencies, e.g. the Swiss Franc ^[3]."Misessus (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources used:

1: http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/16/markets/gold_record/index.htm

2: http://www.taxfreegold.co.uk/highestevergoldpriceinusdollars.html

3: http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=qkchart&symbol=FX%5EUSDCHF (The trend becomes clear when you click on the 3 year chart)

That's still

WP:OR. CRETOG8(t/c

) 08:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So what you say is that if there is no article that explictedly says "Peter Schiff was right on his prediction that the dollar would use value", it can't be included in the article even though it is sourced and demonstrably correct? You are saying that a demonstrably false claim made by his competitors in order to discredit him and thus hoping to win som business belongs in a WP-article, but not a well-sourced, well-documented refutation of that demonstrably false claim? Am I finally understanding how the WP process works? Misessus (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this the case? If yes, then I'd move to strike the Schiff-bit, as has been advocated many times earlier by others than myself. Firstly, his dollar prediction came true. Secondly, what the WSJ-authors criticized was an investment strategy, not an economic prediction based on the application of Austrian theory and methodology. Thirdly, the source is old and obsolete, which follows from point 1, and is thus a premature and ultimately false judgment made in order to discredit a competitor, not an Austrian scholar, which makes the source inappropriate and the whole bit misplaced. If it should have a place, it is in the Peter Schiff ariticle, not as a refutation of Austrian predictive ability, since it in fact is the exact opposite. Fourthly (and more technical), the source itself isn't available to anyone without a WSJ-subscription. Isn't there a rule against using sources people cannot check?

For these reasons (mainly 1-3), I submit that the Schiff-bit should be deleted. Comments? Views? Misessus (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I submit that it stays. In the context of the Austrian School, Schiff is one of the most notable public figures, and if you're going to discuss predictions, his are among the most notable, if not the single-most notable predictions meant to represent the Austrian School. BigK HeX (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree.--Dark Charles (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Schiff's notable predicition was the collapse of the housing bubble. That the dollar would lose value was residual to that. And even so, as we have seen, even that prediction has been proven right. This is the key point, and no one here is discussing it. Schiff was right, so why is presented as being wrong? Why am I not allowed to add the sourced refutation? Could someone please give some straight answers to these very straight points and questions?

I should also like to add that BigK's claim about the notability of Schiff's housing bubble prediction is way off. In no way, shape or form is that prediction the most notable. It pales in comparison to Mises' predictions regarding both the 1929 crash and the unworkability of the socialist system. It falls far behind Hazlitt's prediction regarding the Bretton Woods system. Virtually the whole Austrian School saw the crisis coming well in advance, even Ron Paul was vocal about it for several years. The reason for Schiff getting so much attention is that he was all over TV and then the internet. People such as Mark Thornton, Doug French and Joe Salerno weren't. And again, Schiff's prediction regarding the dollar came true, which is why the bit should be removed because it is misleading. Surely you have to be able to give better reason for keeping the Schiff-bit unqualified than that. I mean, it can hardly be enough that you just think it should remain as it is, when an opposing and well argued submission has been given? Misessus (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I take it no one will offer any real objection to removing the Schiff-bit. It not, I will proceed with deleting it within one day. Misessus (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It has been explained to you by several editors why the section should remain. That you do not accept these arguments is not the same as "no one will offer any real objection" to your removal of it. Do not remove it against the clear consensus on this page, doing so constitutes edit warring. LK (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It most certainly hasn't been explained. All that has been offered are mere opinions like "I think it should be included because it was a notable prediction". Not only wasn't the prediction notable, it was right on the money. This issue has -not- been addressed, not by you or anyone else. BigK even tried to compare it to the Samuelson prediction, when the two could scarcely be further apart from each other. Just claiming that it has been explained, as you did, doesn't mean an actual explanation has been given. And like I said in the other section, I have yet to see a policy that promotes the inclusion of distortive, misleading character assassination by competitors. This is the typical bullying and steamrolling I've been complaining about from the very beginning. Mere opinions are offered by biased people, and a "consensus" is claimed when the biased people agree with each other. Every sound, well argued objection is completely ignored or ridiculed, and further objection is threatened with various disciplinary actions, like you yourself did just now. Misessus (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It has been explained. Whether you care to accept those explanations or not, it would be unwise to edit war. BigK HeX (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It has not been explained, since none of the objections to your mere opinions have been addressed. Let me remind you that this has happened before, and then as now you tried to steamroll the issue. You've been given every chance to state your case and answer the objections. You've elected to respond with threats. No explanation in sight. Where is it? Misessus (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

How can the Mises-bit be justified when NO ONE HERE SUPPORTS IT?!?!?!

Also, Austrians have NEVER claimed timing, they've NEVER engaged in the attempt to time a future event perfectly. They speak in BROAD TERMS, so Skoussen's supposed criticism of their TIMING is completely irrelevant and misplaced. Since the section is specifically about PREDICTIONS, shouldn't the definition of the term be observed?

Why is the Hazlitt-bit deleted, when it was perfectly well sourced!?

What is going on here!?!!? Misessus (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see also,

WP:SHOUT (no need at all for you to type with all that uppercase). Gwen Gale (talk

) 22:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you actually address an issue or is your function confined to citing arbitrary WP-rules? Misessus (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the big issues is that you think edit-warring is the way to accomplish things, even despite warnings and past blocks for the behavior. BigK HeX (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to be following the editing policies and guidelines and if you keep it up, some other admin might come along and block you before I would. Until you show some heed to the polcies and tamp down your behaviour, that will be a bigger worry than the article content. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

So block me if you have to. You're clearly not going to address any of the issues so stop with the threats and make good on them, if that is your intention. It is clear that there is no interest in creating a balanced and correct article on the Austrian School. When I delete poorly sourced material and add well sourced material, it is edit warring. When someone else deletes well sourced material and adds poorly sourced material, it is being a good editor. This practice is well documented on this page. It makes you wonder, was Wikipedia created for the sake of Wikipedia, or for the purpose of providing the public with reliable information? Right now I can't tell which. Misessus (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I can say, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. See Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, at the bitter end of the sourcing trail. They gather and carry flaws like Albacore tuna suck up mercury. I don't know of any general reference encyclopedia that one can meaningfully cite in anything beyond middle school work. Knowing this, I still look stuff up on it maybe half a dozen times a day because... it's a handy way to look stuff up. If I need to meaningfully rely on something I read here, I do verify it elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand the disclaimer and the greatly appreciate the tuna-mercury analogy, but does that mean WP should strive towards mediocracy? If a verifiable claim can so easily be falsified (or at least significantly qualified), shouldn't it then be done? Or rather, why oppose the inclusion of said qualification when duly offered and sourced? I've suggested a qualifier in the sec break section above and provided the sources. I still think the easiest, best and most appropriate solution would be to delete the whole Schiff-bit. It is demonstrably false and very misplaced, and I have yet to hear an actual argument for why it should be included Misessus (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Because of the policy against original research by

OR is a basic Wikipedia policy, if you wish to contribute here you must abide by community policies. LK (talk

) 11:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That was a spectacularly weak analogy. Schiff said the value of the dollar would decline. If anything, the dollar-prediction should be listed as -another- example of the reliability of Austrians. No one is disputing that the dollar fell in value, which is why it should be included on the same grounds as the financial collapse prediction. I have no problem with abiding to policies, but I've yet to see a policy that promotes inclusion of misleading distortions and character assassinations by a person's competitors, supported by a source no one can check, nonetheless. Unless you can refer to a policy like that, I see no grounds for refusing the deletion of the Schiff-bit. Misessus (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is a great illustration of why the principle of

synthesis

is so necessary for Wikipedia to work. IMHO, the facts are:

• Schiff predicted that the financial crisis following the burst of the housing bubble would cause the US dollar to tank.
• The US dollar went up spectacularly when the financial crisis hit.
• Schiff lost a lot of money for his investors.
• The dollar later went down, after the financial crisis had abated.

I'm sure you have your own 'spin' on these facts. We could argue until the cows come home, no one will change their minds here. Arguing about 'facts' and the 'truth' is a waste of time. That's why we stick with

) 04:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

My spin? The dollar started hitting lows in 2009. The crisis was by no means over then, it still isn't, as recent data shows. The predictions was correct. Timing has nothing to do with predictions. Schiff has gained huge amounts for his clients. The claim is not supported by the source. The source itself is weak and unavailable. Nothing in the source mentions Austrian economics. The source, written by unknown, incompetent, obscure journalists completely void of any qualifications and merit has nothing to do with claims stated in the article. That is against WP policy. I'm rather surprised you didn't know that. Misessus (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the debate about the Schiff-bit has sprawled all over the talk page, I thought it'd be helpful to bring the debate to a new section. As I've said before, I think the Schiff-bit should be removed completely. Here are some of the reasons for that:

1. None of the authors of the WSJ-article (which isn't available for anyone who isn't a WSJ-subscriber), are economists. They are journalists, and quite obscure journalists of that. None of them can be considered authorities on economics, certainly not monetary theory. The section says "In response, some mainstream economists have pointed out that Austrian school economists do not have a better record at prediction.", referring to the WSJ-article. This is factually incorrect, because the authors are not economists and thus not representative for mainstream economists. Surely the source used to back up a claim like this should be supported by a source provided by mainstream economists? These authors are virtually nobodies who don't represent anyone.

2. The section's heading says "Predictive ability" and concerns the accuracy of economic predictions. As I've explained before, economic predictions do not concern the timing of an even, it concerns whether the event itself will take place. For instance, Samuelson predicted that the USSR would overtake the US, but he never made any real efforts to time it. When Schiff was talking about the coming bursting of the housing bubble, he explicitly said that it was immaterial whether it happened in 2007 or 2008. Likewise, Hazlitt didn't try to time the collapse of Bretton Woods, but only that it would collapse. The list goes on. This leads us to the next sentence in the bit: "They argue that adherents of Austrian economics have failed in their timing and description of financial crises". Not only is the whole logic of this sentence way off due to its emphasis on timing, the claim about "description of financial crises" isn't in any way supported, even mentioned, in the article. As said, the authors were (wrongly) criticizing an investment strategy, in no way did it discuss Austrian School economists' ability to predict and explain financial crises. In other words, the cited (unavailable) source bear little or no relation to the text in the article.

3. As explained before, we all know that Schiff's residual prediction about the US Dollar came true even in 2009, and increasingly so since then. To have the bit there in the article is factually incorrect and highly misleading, not to mention that it is much more a character assassination attempt than serious research.

In closing I want to point out the appallingly low standards applied to the Schiff-bit. In no way, shape or form would such a weak source for such a bold and demonstrably false claim have been accepted in an article on mainstream economics. We all know that this is true. Also, the steamrolling approach, ignoring every single objection, not advancing a single sound argument, is pretty telling for the modus operandi among certain WP-editors. I've been given many references to WP rules and policies, but I've yet to see a policy that promotes inclusion of misleading distortions and character assassinations by a completely unknown journalists, and supported by a source no one can check.

I ask now that these objections are answered in an honest and relevant way, so that we can have an actual discussion about this issue. If no answer is given, I will take it as a silent approval to remove the Schiff-bit. Misessus (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please review the comments already posted. People don't have to repeat themselves every few days just to object to your intended edits.

Filibustering is not a valid approach to editing. BigK HeX (talk

) 20:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any approach to consensus here, but for the sake of the record, I also think the WSJ article is inappropriate (as

WP:UNDUE) for this article. It's one article, on one prediction, by one proponent of the Austrian school. The article doesn't connect the predictions to the Austrian school generally. As Misessus points out, the authors aren't economists. I don't necessarily follow or agree with Misessus' other arguments, but I agree with the conclusion. CRETOG8(t/c

) 20:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

BigK, I have reviewed them, the fact is that none of my extensive objections have ever been answered. If you think they have been, please point to the section on this talk page where those answers and explanations can be found. Or better yet, copypaste them here. Cretog summarizes the issue fairly well. I would add that this one prediction, made by this one proponent of the Austrian School, also turned out be correct, so if anything, it should be included as another example of Austrians getting things right. Again you fail to answer the objections, opting for another irrelevant link. I will give you and any other interested party few more days to respond to these objections, as well as Cretog's point about

WP:UNDUE. Failure to do so will result in the removal of the Schiff-bit. Misessus (talk

) 21:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't expect anyone to respond to any arguments about 'facts'. As our co-founder Jimmy Wales puts it:

Since you have made no arguments based on

blocked from editing. LK (talk

) 04:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

LK. The objections I raised concerned the claims made and source given, not facts. There is no consensus here, as Cretog's comment shows. Please answer my objections (1 and 2 in particular) and please stop with your threats. Misessus (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The only

reliable source for this issue. LK (talk

) 06:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to read what is written. WSJ may or may not be a reliable source on a general level, but that is not the issue. The issue is that the cited source bears little or no relation at all with the text in the article, as I've explained in my objections above. This is the problem. The text talks about "mainstream economists" and "Austrian descriptions of financial crises". However, none of the authors are economists, mainstream or otherwise, nor does the article say anything about Austrian economics and its description of financial crises. Are you getting this? You can't make claims about what mainstream economists say about Austrian economics and then refer to an article that is not written by mainstream economists nor discuss Austrian economics. The article in question has nothing to do with Austrian economics, so it has no place in this article. In its current version, the claim in the article is unsourced, which is why I'm removing it. If you want to keep it, provide a source from mainstream economists discussing Austrian economics. If you don't, I will remove the Schiff-bit. Misessus (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a nice strawman, but in reality the WSJ article sources the assertion that "(the opposite [of Peter Schiff's prediction on the value of the dollar] occurred causing significant client losses according to reports from 2009)". The WSJ article most certainly supports the claim. BigK HeX (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is the strawman? The article is not written by economists, mainstream or otherwise. It does not discuss Austrian economics' description of financial crises. Timing is not an issue with economic predictions (much like truth is not an issue with WP). Schiff prediction about the US dollar came true, even in 2009. The article bears no relation to the two central claims in the section. Thus, those claims must be regarded as unsourced and will be removed.

This discussion should be contrasted against the one regarding the Bretton Woods inclusion. DarkCharles opposed it because he thought it a criticism against Keynes, making the rather amazing claim that BW had very little to with Keynes' vision, even though all of BW's basic framework as envisioned by Keynes was implemented. This article, that has absolutely nothing to do with what is claimed in the WP-section, is suddenly top notch. The hypocrisy is astounding and I will edit the section accordingly. Misessus (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: "The hypocrisy is astounding and I will edit the section accordingly."

You're no stranger to edit warring and the pursuant consequences. BigK HeX (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The only one edit warring here is you. You removed duly sourced material provided by actual economists and economic historians who have witnessed before Congress. The edit further removed the claim about mainstream economists criticizing Austrian description of financial crises, since none of the authors of the article were mainstream economists nor did they discuss Austrian economics, but confined their criticism to Peter Schiff's investment strategy. You broke WP-rules by removing SOURCED material and adding UNSOURCED material and thus it was YOU who engaged in edit war. Misessus (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

May I also point out that the only "criticisms" mainstream have is against Schiff, none of which are founded in reality? As we all know, US stocks have tanked against foreign stocks, especially in terms of dividend yield. Likewise, price inflation has been rampant in terms of food, energy, gas, raw materials, commodities and precious metals, not to mention that Austrians define inflation as increasing money supply. The Fed's balance sheet has tripled over the past few years. However, I'm willing to let it stand as it is now. The WSJ-article is not a source for "mainstream economists" making claims about the "Austrian description of financial crises". The 1946 prediction stays also, as it is well documented that Alvin Hansen et al. warned about a new great depression in 1946. Misessus (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So it's back to edit warring, since my objections and motivations can't be answered. The 1946-bit is as sourced and well motivated as the Samuelson or the BW-bit. There is absolutely no reason to delete it as this section is about Austrian criticism of the mainstream. A CBO estimate isn't even a source. If they could show evidence that so and so many jobs have been created, that is one thing, but the "study" just throws out there that maybe we created 1 or maybe 3 million jobs or maybe more. Since when is estimates by biased parties considered reliable sources? There are estimates of how many jobs the Stimulus destroyed, but they have no more place in the article than the CBO's estimates. What matters is what can be be verified, and that is the much manipulated official unemployment rate. Misessus (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to briefly discuss the recent edits I've made, so as to make clear where Misessus has violated Wikipedia policy. 1) The following, I believe, is in violation of Wikipedia policies: "and point to the prediction made by leading mainstream economists such as

. I didn't see support for the claim that "[1946] was the most robust year in US history." I searched for "robust" in the document but nothing showed up. I might be wrong about my second point however. 2) The CBO--I am confident to say--is the very paragon of a reliable source, as specified by , because a criticism is being levied against the stimulus plan, so I think it's good to tell the other side of the story. 3) I don't think http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jobs-report-is-good-enough-to-apf-3530453809.html?x=0 is a good source in this context because it doesn't mention the stimulus or Austrian economics at all. 4) And of course we've been over the Schiff stuff a whole bunch of times. It's pretty clear that Misessus' recent edit to the Schiff material is . This time he didn't even bother to add citation. --Dark Charles (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

DarkCharles, Richard Vedder and Lowell Galloway are renowned historians. As late as this year, Richard Vedder testified before the House Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy. His credentials can hardly be called into question. The article itself is very well documented and sourced. Hansen and many other mainstream economists warned that a depression would hit if the US demoblized too quickly, the opposite came true as Vedder and Galloway shows. Along with Samuelson's USSR-prediction, this is the most spectacular failure of mainstream economic predictions and that is why it belongs in this section of the article. And what specific word is used, "robust" or something else, should be entirely irrelevant.

The CBO may or may not be a reliable source, the point is that a mere estimate is meaningless, especially when the so called estimate varies from 1 to over 3 million. Its not even en estimate, they're shooting blindly. There is no consensus among economists about how many jobs, if any, the stimulus created, not to mention the fact that the stimulus destroyed millions of job, as evidenced by the rising unemployment rate. How about telling this side of the story?

Yahoo Finance may or may not be a good source. I think it is, since its usually not Yahoo Finance's own articles but reprints of AP and Reuters news bulletins. But I'm happy with substituting the Yahoo source with that of the Department of Labor.

I don't see why the claim that the dollar lost value needs to be cited by a source saying anything about Schiff, nor do I see how that is any more OR than your telling the "other side" of the stimulus story. I'd like to hear you explain that one. Also, including the remark about client losses has absolutly NO relevance whatsoever.

This talk page should really be required reading for every WP reader, since it shows how arbitrarily WP rules and policies are applied in order to discredit certain areas and certain people. Isn't WP supposed to be neutral? Misessus (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I just want to cover one point. The reason why the Yahoo Finance employment article isn't acceptable in this context is because of

WP:SYNTHESIS, so a BLS source isn't any better. You need to find sources that are about the stimulus to use them in arguments about the stimulus. I'm not sure if you knew that, so I wanted to point it out. Your other arguments aren't in terms of Wikipedia policy either, but I think I've already spent enough time explaining why they aren't valid.--Dark Charles (talk

) 17:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Promising to edit war

Let me encourage editors not to promise to edit war, even in the heat of a discussion. (Some admins consider that a sincere promise to edit war is blockable in its own right). The fact that material is well-sourced is not by itself a decisive argument for its inclusion. Even in a case where a statement is provably true and well-sourced, the editors have to decide whether the material is important enough to include in the article. Only a consensus can answer that. This whole discussion is hard to follow. A

) 04:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time to start a RfC on user behavior. Missesus has been actively flouting Wikipedia community policies for years. LK (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

LK has done nothing but edit war and making open threats since day one. I've asked for comments and answers repeatedly and the only answer I've ever got from LK and BigK are threats and slander. Is that in line with WP policy?

As for the importance of the Alvin Hansen-bit. His own WP-article states that he was one of the, if not the leading Keynesian of his day, the "American Keynes", even. His prediction of the 1946 depression surpasses even that of Samuelson's specatuclar USSR prediction, or even that of the Phillip's Curve collapse in being wrong, so it is arguably the most prominent example of misguided economic predictions.

As for the edit war, no one was promising anything. I merely stated a fact as DarkCharles just reverted my edit for no reason. Misessus (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with LK on an RFC/USER and have suggested as much. EVERY SINGLE spurt of editing from User:Misessus exhibits this same disregard for Wiki policies and disregard for basic courtesy. BigK HeX (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. Your own lack of courtesy and respect for WP policies should of course not have any implications whatsoever. Sometimes I wonder if LK and BigK actually are two different people, since they have the exact same position on exactly everything. But thank you for proving my point again. Neither you or LK have never actually answered a request for comment other by making accusations and threats. Misessus (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If you find people not responsive to your comments, you may want to consider the fact that your less-than-courteous (if not outright viscous) tone prompts people to ignore most of your comments. This is one of the outcomes that the Wiki policies on

WP:NPA seeks to avoid. So, take a look in the mirror before faulting so many others of not responding to you. BigK HeX (talk

) 20:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Less than courteous? Maybe you should look in the mirror, and then at your and LK's conduct under the Summary of discussion section, then in the mirror again. I have yet to see you give any non-threatening, non-accusing response to anyone who differ even the slightest from your position. Case in point your previous comment (or any comment on this entire talk page). Misessus (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to retain any confidence in WP after having seen the blatant vandalism of the Austrian School article, and how arbitrarily WP rules and polices have been invoked and the hostile aggressiveness of some editors here.

From the get go, every effort was made to turn the "Criticism of mainstream practices"-section to a second "Criticism" section of the Austrian School. No breach of policy was avoided, no standard cheated.

Take the Mises-bit, for instance. How much effort did it not take on the part of myself to get that removed, even if the only source literally was an old wive's tale, nothing more. A completely unsourced claim defended through numerous edits, not by sound argumentation, but by overt threats and otherwise aggressive behavior.

Then the Schiff-bit. Even more effort was needed to remove the claim about mainstream economists criticizing the Austrian School for its description of financial crises, when the only source was an unavailable WSJ-article that was not written by mainstream economists nor did it discuss Austrian economics. This too was defended even more violently than the Mises-bit. And even now, it is insisted that there is an agreement of retaining the client losses bit, even if no such discussion has ever been had, not to mention that it is of no relevance whatsoever since even the article itself doesn't say anything about realized losses. When I pointed out that the article was from January 2009 and that all those losses had been recouped and surpassed within 6 months or so, it was rejected as OR.

What isn't OR, however, is a biased, completely unfounded estimate by a government body about the terrificness of the stimulus program. No, that's just "telling the other side of the story", we are told. The fact that the official unemployment rate shows that jobs have been lost is just OR.

We are also told that some of the most renowned historians in the US, people who have testified before Congress as late as this year, are somehow fringe and cannot be included. Unavailable articles written by nobodies and disingenuous blogposts, those are all alright, but renowned historians are fringe and unsubmittable. And speaking of UNDUE, both criticisms of the Austrian School in this section is not leveled against an actual economists, but against a stock broker who is a self proclaimed Austrian. Nothing on Mises, Hayek or Rothbard, or even contemporary economists. No, just this one stock broker, who in addition to everything else have been right in his predictions.

People like LK, DarkCharles and BigK say that I ignore WP policies and rules. I don't, I just recognize the fact that you yourselves have rendered them irrelevant by your appalling conduct here, by your blatant disregard for any standards for applying the rules and policies, as evidenced by your staunch support of the Mises and Schiff-bits.

And as for consensus. Consensus means a solution everyone more or less agree on. There is no such thing here, it is a loud majority consisting of 2, sometimes 3 people who shout everyone else down. But maybe that is the definition of consensus when the article is about the Austrian School.

It has also been suggested that editors should request comments. Well, that has been tried, but the only answer you ever get is threats and accusations, if you indeed get any answer at all. LK and BigK will always agree on every distortion of this article, so why should they care about commenting? They have their consensus, and nobody seems to care what that does to the integrity of the article. Those who object will be shouted down and eventually blocked. That is probably why I'm the only one trying to keep this article real, and why I will evidently fail as everyone else have done. Misessus (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

BigK, it should be clear from the talk page and the recent edit trend on this article that you simply don't have support for your edits. You can't just rewrite the article as you see fit, that is what the talk page is for. Misessus (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

As for NPOV. A government agency evaluating a government program is hardly neutral, is it? Nor are the Austrian econmists and certainly not Dr. Taylor biased. They have put forth researched critique of the stimulus program. This is what this particular paragraph of the article is about, criticisms of the mainstream. I've provided both Austrian and mainstream sources that directly discuss both Alvin Hansen and the stimulus. There is absolutely no violation of WP policies here. If you have a different opinion, please explain it here on the talk page.

I would also remind you how fiercely you defended the Mises-bit and certainly the Schiff-bit, even though those sources were demonstrably much weaker than those I've provided, and actually did constitute breaches of WP policies and rules. So you were wrong then and in my opinion you are wrong now. However, I am as always willing to listen to courteous, well motivated arguments for your point of view. I would urge you though not rewrite the article on your own authority without consulting the talk page. Especially considering your failed defenses mentioned above. Misessus (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

DarkCharles and BigK, you do realize that you are also required to use the TalkPage? That you can't rewrite the article on your own authority, removing sourced material for no other reason that you simply don't like what it says? Misessus (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

NYT "blog" deletion

This micro edit war caught my eye because material was being deleted without (IMNSHO) real WP worthy justification. That is, the material was supported by the "blog" and a second source and a third source. It stared off with this edit [2] which claimed the sourcing was "poor". When I reverted and pointed out that it was sourced by the New York Times, my edit is reverted on the grounds that it was a

) 07:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

So the NYT news is a good source. However, material in the opinion section isn't fact checked like the rest of the NYT paper. If you like, I can find the policy. One of the two other sources is a transcript on Glenn Beck's show, and the other is from the Misses institute. Glenn Beck is opinion, and even FOX news makes a distinction between Glenn Beck and "hard news" folks like Bret Baier. The Misses Institute is a great source for opinions about Austrian economics, but it's not acceptable for historical information. I've already explained this before.--Dark Charles (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is on you re the non-fact checking of the NYT opinion. As per my comment above, you have not addressed the "full editorial control" aspect of the criteria.--S. Rich (talk

) 08:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC) And where have you explained that Misses Inst. is not acceptable for historical info? Please provide refs or links. Thanks. 08:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Oh -- I see. Fringe. No, you are entirely off the mark with that. Misses most certainly is not fringe theory. Please,please come up with something better.08:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

DarkCharles, what S.Rich asks of you and BigK are exactly what I've been asking from you for quite some time, i.e. real, and well motivated arguments for your edits. It's good that you finally responded on the TalkPage. We now have two mainstream sources repeating a direct quote from Alvin Hansen. Richard Vedder has testified before Congress this year in the capacity of an expert economic historian. HIs and Lowell Galloway's article is in no way, shape or form FRINGE. I agree with S.Rich that that the real motivation behind your and BigK's edits seem to be some sort of animosity towards the Austrian School, and second his plea that you please come up with something better. Be that as it may, it should at least be clear there is no consensus support for your recent edits, so I ask you stop reverting and use the talk page instead. You have the ball. Misessus (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Added a source to the Hansen-bit, a study from the Joint Economic Committe of the US Congress. This should settle the issue as well as debunk any claims about Vedder and Galloway being fringe. Misessus (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Hansen criticism can be included. However, the article should put all these criticisms in the proper perspective. The article should note where these criticisms come from, and not make overmuch of it. After all, when you have tens of thousands of economists making predictions, it's not hard to find instances when some were wrong. These criticisms of mainstream economics should not be parlayed into an uncritical synthetic statement that 'mainstream economists are wrong'. LK (talk) 05:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with LK on this one, which is why the specific examples are limited to Paul Samuelson and Alvin Hansen, as they both were arguably the most prominent Keynsians of all, second only to Keynes himself, and certainly the leading Keynesians in their days. With that in mind, it may be proper to rewrite (or remove) the bit about the Stimulus program. First because opinions even among mainstream economists are divided, secondly because the bit itself is so broad. If the examples of Hansen and Samuelson would be followed, the criticism should be aimed at e.g. Christina Romer, who predicted that unemployment would stay below 8 percent. It is widely recognized that her reputation suffered significantly from this failed prediction, with unemployment hittin 10.1 percent and has persisted over 9 percent ever since.

What are your thoughts on this? Should the section be rewritten in this fashion or do we leave it as it is? Misessus (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

lulz .... SRich is far too veteran an editor to sit there really declaring that the burden of proof is not on him as the editor supporting addition of this material (and it's poor source). Your addition has been reverted as poor source, and it is hardly any secret that the burden of proof is on you (and User:Misessus) to show the reliability, if you disagree. BigK HeX (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've checked the article, but the Hansen-bit is now supported by a study commissioned by the Joint Economic Committee of US Congress, two books by David Hart and Mark Skoussen, and Vedder's and Galloway's article. Surely these sources are sufficient? Misessus (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What BigK HeX is saying is that

WP:BURDEN says that you folks have the responsibility to go to the talk page to work out the issue before you revert others' reverts, because you (Misessus) are the one that added the material in question. --Dark Charles (talk

) 19:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? You, of all people, talk about the responsibility to use the talk page? Tell me, when have either you or BigK ever used the talk page? When have you ever done anything but reverted or inserted or otherwise rewritten the whole section without hearing anyone else? You've never come to the talk page first, so excuse me for not taking you seriously. How many times haven't I asked, pleaded even, that you at least say something on the talk page, only to completely ignored? I even asked for comments and thoughts as late as today, and you both failed to respond and instead chose to revive a discussion that is since long dead. Misessus (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, I'd like to point out

WP:BURDEN again. You've been the one adding and deleting stuff so it's your responsibility. As far as my use of the talk page: I have used it, just scroll up. But you keep doing the same things over and over again and making the same arguments again and again. It's not constructive to reargue an issue if you're not going to say anything new.--Dark Charles (talk

) 20:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I rephrased the Stimulus bit. Tell me what you think about it. I think its better this way, considering LK's comment earlier, but if the consensus prefer the previous edit I'm fine with that too. Misessus (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC) The burden-discussion is over, but thank you for your helpful reminders. Could you please look at my last edit and tell me what you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 20:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Stimulus

So much for using the talk page, eh? I put it there to show what it'd look like cause LK seemed to want to keep the criticisms specific. The Romer-bit is virtually identical to the Samuelson and Hansen bits, both of which have been approved. In this case, the Austrian article was already approved and Romer's prediction sourced by mainstream sources. This was not new material, but a rewrite of already existing material in order to make it more in line with the rest of the paragraph. I also said that if the consensus wanted the the old version, I'd revert back. You alone is not the consensus, DarkCharles. If you object, state your objections here. Don't revert on your own authority. Misessus (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The source you used for the criticism of the stimulus was about modeling, so the Austrian criticism needs to be about modeling if it's going to use that source.--Dark Charles (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

How about we just remove the Austrian bit of the sentence and leave only the Romer-bit, like: "Austrians also point to Christina Romer who predicted that the stimulus program would keep unemployment below 8 percent, but unemployment rose to over 10 percent". Would that help? Misessus (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It might. I need to look at the sources. I can't do it now (I have to work). I'll get back to you, probably around 8 Pacific time. It'll also give other users time to look at the edit.--Dark Charles (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Great! I'll try to rephrase it further to make it in line with the rest of the paragraph and on par with the sources. Misessus (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I never looked at it. Looks like all of the disputed content has been deleted. For the most part, however, Byelf2007's edit seems fine.--Dark Charles (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

We have to stop putting in AS school criticisms of mainstream figures uncritically. It is easy to misquote or quote out of context people who you disagree with to create strawmen, which you then use to 'prove' that they were wrong. (See for instance, the supposed Al Gore quote "I invented the internet"[3]) We cannot present at face value, AS representations of what non-Austrian economists said (esp. Mises Inst. articles as they don't have a particularly good reputation about this); the original sources must be found and presented as well. Otherwise, the article could end up repeating defamatory material, violating

) 07:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

So the whole article was suddenly rewritten. Are you allowed to do that just like that? Misessus (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Most edits are incremental as

) 06:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had time to familiarize myself with the rewrite yet. It looked pretty much okay, from a cursory glance, but I shall have to look more closely. I guess I was just taken by surprise to see almost the entire article rwritten in what appeared to be quite a limited time period :) Misessus (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If in doubt see

WP:BRD. -- Vision Thing --

16:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I get impatient with the idea of incremental changes, especially when most of the changes I want seem like they would be popular. I'm fine with us splitting hairs over this and semi-reverting, but I like to do this expeditiously. byelf2007 (talk)

I am minded to revert the whole thing. Firstly, the lead is now too short, and doesn't cover all aspects of the article with proper weight, as per

WP:LEAD, the old lead did a fine job of covering everything. Secondly, there is now an 'Overview' section, which controverts the manual of style (MOS), which states that the lead functions as an overview for the article. Thirdly, there are random additions of uncited OR opinion pushed into what was previously a well cited article. Fourthly, I don't see the point of this wholesale rewrite. I don't see how the new version is any better than the old. What exactly was wrong with the old version? LK (talk

) 07:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I fixed one and two. There's no easy fix for three.--Dark Charles (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it looks great now (I'm fine with no "overview" section). A few days ago we had an "influence section" that belonged in "legacy", "legacy" wasn't its own section, and there was a confusing "Academic and political background" section. byelf2007 (talk)

I noticed that the article on Keynesian economics has a section called "Keynesian response", addressing some of the criticisms leveled against it. Shouldn't this article have one as well, considering how ridiculous some of the criticisms mentioned in the criticism section? Misessus (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You find them in mainstream academic sources showing the response's notability, per

WP:DUE and that'd be strong proof of notability. Post crap from some mises.org blog or other fringe site and it'll likely be deleted for non-notability or poor sourcing issues. Responses that are notable for whatever reason are probably fine -- responses that exist only outside of the mainstream will likely be challenged. BigK HeX (talk

) 16:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't Austrian responses come from Austrian sources and not mainstream?

"Post crap from some mises.org blog or other fringe site". How decent and neutral of you. Mises.org is one of the most trafficked economics site in the world, if not the most trafficked. Its not crap or fringe, and it is very relevant to Austrian School article. The Austrian responses would of course be given by Austrians. Mises.org is a web portal which collects most if not all Austrian material. It is the logical source for Austrian responses. I really don't understand your animosity, and it is certainly not appropriate or motivated. Misessus (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, you fail to understand the policies here, and I have no illusions that any more pleading with you to familiarize yourself with

WP:NPOV will help. BigK HeX (talk

) 18:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

mises.org is a reliable and scholarly (

as such adjectives are taken to mean here) source on the broad topic of Austrian economics. Neither fringe, nor a blog (the website also has a blog, as I recall, as many reliable websites do, but the website itself is not by any meaningful outlook a blog, although blogs by those with verifiable knowledge and understanding of a topic can indeed be cited on WP). Either way mises.org carries both primary and secondary sources which can be cited on this website, which is but a tertiary reference. Whether or not to use a cite from there comes down to WP:Consensus, which I should also say, is not drawn from a vote among editors with sundry PoVs. Gwen Gale (talk

) 18:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

mises.org has been accepted as a rs in several wp articles. bigk do you have a source supporting your claim otherwise? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism sections should be incorporated into the article and not be separate sections. The main criticism of Austrian economics, as explained in the article, is that it does not rely on empirical evidence and is therefore a matter of belief. Their response is that human actions are too complex to be described by mathematical formulae. We can use mainstream sources for this and do not need to use their website. TFD (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Austrian economics is quite "mainstream," as is mises.org. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is not even close to being considered mainstream. I doubt there is a SINGLE wiki article on an economic topic where a citation from Mises.org would be allowed to stand as a mainstream viewpoint. BigK HeX (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I just want to remind Misessus of the rules: If someone reverts your edit, you should go to the talk page and wait for consensus instead of undoing the revert.--Dark Charles (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Misesus, whatever you do, please do not edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

How did we end up here? I notice something on Keynesian economics, ask if the same section should be incorporated in this article, and your response is to hack me down for edit warring?! And the very person (DC) who more than most have reverted edits without going to the talk page first. What is going on here!? Could someone please explain!? Misessus (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes its hard to figure out how we got on one side of the mulberry bush or the other.--S. Rich (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, if you add material or delete sourced material then the burden is on you. If you make an edit and someone reverts it, you need to go to the talk page and get consensus before you undo the revert. The reason why I point this out is because you have a long history of edit waring, so a preemptive reminder seems called for.--Dark Charles (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Your kind warnings might actually mean something, dear Charles, if it was not for the fact that you've engaged in far more edit warring than I ever have. I think the warning was meant to antagonize me further, to stir up another useless argument. You should be ashamed of yourself. Misessus (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'ld like to remind you that accusing people of improper behavior without backing up the statement with diffs, is

impolite, and violates one of the central principles of Wikipedia. LK (talk

) 03:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been accused of many things during my time here, and seldom has anyone bothered to back anything up. I'm really getting sick of the way you treat me. I've tried to contribute with my knowledge to the Austrian School article to the best of my abilities, only to be opposed every step of the way by people like you, BigK and DC. At the end of the day, my edits were proven correct, but not until several other senior editors intervened. You three defended poorly sourced claims very aggressively, never bothering to make your case on the talk page, despite my numerous pleas for discussion. Now, after you've all been proven DEAD WRONG, proven to have violated WP rules and policies, you still treat me as some sort of upstart. I don't demand an apology from you, although one is certainly warranted, but I've had it with your condescending, self-righteous tone. It is time for you to take a long look in the mirror and start minding your own business. You have absolutely no credibility in my eyes anymore, nor any right whatsoever to climb back up to the ivory tower telling other people how to behave. I've learnt my lesson, and thanks to responsible editors like GwenGale, S.Rich, VisionThing and others, I'm a lot more familiar with the process and know who to ask for correct answers, when in doubt. I don't think I'll ever pay any mind to anything you say ever again, as you've never paid me any mind. But I suppose lost trust can be regained some day. But until then, keep your "friendly reminders" to yourself. Misessus (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't care what you think of us. Just please follow Wikipedia policy, and--in particular--don't edit war.--Dark Charles (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

GOOD!!! Then the feeling is mutual. Keep your edit war comments to yourself as you are a far worse edit warrior than I've ever been. Misessus (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Misessus (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Misessus (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edits to the Criticism section

Below are the edits I propose is made to the section. The text in quotes is the original criticism noted in the section. Below are the individual responses complete with sources. Note that I think one of the paragraphs should be removed completely. Here it goes:

Paragraph 1: “Critics have concluded… contributions to economic theory.”

Response: Austrians respond to this criticism by claiming that the scientific method of the natural sciences is not applicable to the social sciences, rejecting the attempts of using mathematics in the study of economics as “scientism”. According to Austrians, the use of the wrong methodology is what is truly unscientific. Source: http://mises.org/daily/2074 (I can cite many others too, but maybe this one is enough?)

Paragraph 2: “A related criticism[6][89] is applied to Austrian School leaders…or falsified by reference to facts.”

Response: Austrians note that empirical data in and of itself cannot explain anything, which in turn means that empirical data can’t falsify a theory(source). For instance, the nominal price level may drop even if the money supply has increased, if productive output has increased as well. In this case, the empirical data suggests that an increase in the money supply does not raise prices, but it fails to take into account the increased output. Source: http://mises.org/epofe/c1p1sec5.asp

Paragraph 3: “Caplan has argued that…ordinal preferences “

I think this paragraph should be deleted. It’s not really a criticism of the Austrian method or economics, its more of a defense of “mainstream modern economics”. I don’t see the relevance of it and move that it’d be stricken.

Paragraph 4: “Economist Jeffrey Sachs…taxation would hamper an economy.”

This is another non-starter. Has anyone looked at the source? First of all, the blog post says nothing about the actual tax-rates. Secondly, considering the multitude of taxes and tax financed programs that are not called taxes, the US can in no way be said to be a low tax country. Thirdly, the blog post does not mention places like Hong Kong and Singapore, that outperform any Nordic country every day of the week. It is all in all a very poor source to a very bold claim. It should be stricken as well, but if you want it to stand, here’s the response:

Response: Austrians have challenged this view and pointed out that low-income earners in the US are better off than most middle-class in the Nordic countries, earning higher wages and enjoying more consumer goods(1). Swedish economists Per Bylund and Stefan Karlsson have pointed out the many structural problems of Sweden and the destructive impact the welfare state has had on the country(2)(3)(4). Finnish economist Kaj Grüssner have done the same with Finland(5). Source 1: http://mises.org/daily/1230 Source 2: http://mises.org/daily/2259 Source 3: http://mises.org/daily/4936/Stagnating-Socialist-Sweden Source 4: http://mises.org/daily/2190/How-the-Welfare-State-Corrupted-Sweden Source 5: http://mises.org/daily/4655/The-Bankrupt-Finnish-Welfare-State

Like I said, I think this paragraph should be removed, but if the consensus wants it to stand, there are plenty of articles that contradict the claim. The reason for the focus on Sweden and Finland in the response is that Sachs blog post was almost exclusively about Sweden and Finland. If the paragraph is left, it should be altered so that instead of saying "comparing developed economies" it says "comparing the Anglo-American countries to the Nordic countries or something like that, as Sachs firs (highly distortively) lumps together very different economies (US, Canada and Australia etc), and then leaves out prominent developed economies such as France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Luxembourg and Italy. Even the table in the blog posts squares "English Speaking countries" against "Nordic countries.

Comments? Misessus (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Response is the same as before. You find evidence of notability and you can post "Austrian responses". If your material discusses topics that are NOT notable, and which have no discussion in the mainstream, it will fail

WP:DUE. BigK HeX (talk

) 20:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It was my understanding that, since it is the Austrian response, the responses would come from, well, Austrians. All my sources are from Austrian economists, so I don't see any problem. Also, GwenGale said mises.org would be acceptable, since it is the one place were most if not all Austrian material is sourced. To me, it seems paradoxical to have mainstream economists give the Austrian response. It is also impractical, since mainstream economists seldom understand Austrian economics, hence the often misguided criticisms. I've given my sources. Do they qualify or not? If not, I should like to hear why not so that I can find better sources. Misessus (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: "it seems paradoxical to have mainstream economists give the Austrian response"

Mainstream economists don't have to give the response. Discussion of the Austrian response among mainstream economists shows notability. BigK HeX (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright...so does that mean I can make the proposed changes with the proposed sources, or does anyone have an objection to that? Misessus (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Uhh.... will your sourcing show discussion in the mainstream? Do you have evidence of notability? If not, expect your changes to be removed for being

WP:UNDUE. BigK HeX (talk

) 16:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we just go through this? Mises.org is an acceptable source for Austrian responses. The sources I've given are from Rothbard and Mises (paragraph 1 and 2). I am going to delete paragraph 3 unless anyone objects. Paragraph 4 can also be deleted, if not, the response will be provided by contemporary Austrians. So if your only objection is that the sources are from Mises.org, you have no grounds for intervening, as GwenGale has already made clear. Misessus (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous sources from Mises.org throughout the article as it is, so I don't see why a few more would be any sort of a problem. Misessus (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now had my proposed edits here for a few days. No one has offered any specific objections to any of my proposals, or specifically challenged my sources. It has been agreed already that Mises.org is an acceptable source for material, as can be seen in the article already. Many sources in the present article are either directly from Mises.org or can be found at Mises.org. I therefore see no obstacle to implementing the changes as I suggested. However, I will limit the response to point 4 somewhat and not use all sources. Misessus (talk) 04:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a series of

"extreme caution". --S. Rich (talk

) 06:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I ran it up the flag. Art Carden is assistant professor of economics and business at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee and an adjunct fellow with the Oakland, California–based Independent Institute. The sources are secondary. Misessus (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

For a countercriticism to be included in the article, it has to directly address the criticism made. Otherwise you are engaged in

WP:SYN. For a counterargument to be included, the source cited has to address Sachs, or his argument, concretely and directly. LK (talk

) 10:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Regarding paragraph 3 (Caplan). No one is disputing Caplan's notability, my point was that the paragraph in question isn't a criticism against the Austrian School, its theories or methodology, making it an irrelevant paragraph alltogheter. He is claiming that Austrians have "misunderstood" mainstream econoimcs. That may or may not be true, but it has nothing to with Austrian economics or Austrian methodology. That is why I removed it.

Added an appropriate source and reprhased the response. Regarding Caplan, as explained earlier, this isn't a criticism against AS, but rather a defense or explanation of mainstream econommics. There is no reason to include it in this section, or at all really. Misessus (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's still a criticism of the Austrian School, because the school is just a collection of people.--Dark Charles (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

But what is the criticism? All Caplan is doing is defending and explaining mainstream economics? He is certainly not criticizing any theory or methodology. Also, paragraph 2, what is that really? Isn't it exactly the same criticism as in paragraph 1? Why do you need to paragraphs saying the same thing? And lastly, could you please be a bit more careful when you're editing? You removed sourced material with your revert. Misessus (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The criticism is that Austrians have misunderstood mainstream economics, causing them to overstate the differences. The utility example seems reasonable to me. The point of the example was that if A has greater utility than B then you can assign the utility values of A and B however you like as long as the utility of A is greater than B, because you can define a monotonic function that changes those values to whatever so it doesn't matter what the numbers are... Sorry about the deletion, by the way.--Dark Charles (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Side issue: don't worry about the

) 05:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, paragraph 3 can remain, though I think its rather feeble. I don't think the claim that Austrians may or may not have "misunderstood" mainstream economics is much of a criticism. People of different schools tend to "misunderstand" each other. In my view, criticism should mean criticism of theories put formulated or methods used. That is what is relevant.

Regarding paragraph 2. Do we actually need a paragraph that simply mirrors what was said in paragraph 1? What's the point? Not to mention that it largely consists of quotes from various Austrian economists. What purpose does it serve?

I will proceed with removing paragraph 2 unless someone can explain why the same criticism has to be mentioned twice, first against the Austrian School itself and then against its "leaders". This seems totally incomprehensible to me. Misessus (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As you say, a second paragraph is

not needed. But I'd move the Hayek observation into the first paragraph and combine the Rothbard responses. As for Mises, we do not need comments about him being an "unscientific" economist. (Criticisms of him as an individual thinker can go into his article.) ¢ The complaint is that the Austrian School itself is not scientific. Nor do we need to say "this leader or that leader" has shortcomings. The criticisms are levied against the school itself, which has adherents as well as leaders and founders. If other editors want to keep more of paragraph 2, namely the criticisms and responses, they might put them into a footnote and thereby avoid/lessen the weight problem. --S. Rich (talk

) 17:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph is about the scientific method and formulating theories in terms of mathematics, and the second is about empiricism. That's a substantial difference.--Dark Charles (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty obviously, Mises and Rothbard and Hayek have been important enough parts of the movement to have their contributions noted in other sections of the article. Mainstream criticisms of their contributions are just as fitting. Trying to cast it as "repetitive" is non-sensical at best. BigK HeX (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Misessus asked for comments a few days ago. Since then there was no discussion as to a distinction between scientific method and empiricism. He basically deleted comments directed towards the leaders of the AS, and did so only after receiving input from me. Instead of doubling up on the critical remarks, it is better to combine them because one aspect (SM) pertains to the other (Empiric). I think the burden is now to explain how and/or why these are distinct criticisms.

As I think about this, it seems that mainstream econ does not like the AS (as they are heterodox) and levies a "not scientific, not empirical" charge against the AS. But doesn't the AS actually say "Mainstream, your attempt to be scientific and/or empirical is doomed to failure because you are applying a method (e.g., the scientific method) which does not work in the real world."? Hmmmm. Is it the case that mainstream is not scientific? I wonder.--S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As to that last bit -- just to keep the talk page from wandering too far -- our random musings may be interesting, but have no place on an article's talk page. BigK HeX (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The two paragraph weren't combined. One was simply deleted. There a difference between empiricism and the scientific method and formulating theories in terms of mathematics. Paragraph one discusses the latter two, and paragraph two the former one. I would also like to remind you that the burden is on the person that makes the edit.--Dark Charles (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The aim was never to combine them, since they say the exact same thing. The scientific method refers to the practice in natural sciences of formulating a hypothesis, performing a controlled experiment and then check the results of that experiment against the hypothesis. The checking of the results is the empirical part. In other words, empiricism is part and parcel, a sub section if you will, of the scientific method. To say that someone reject both the scientific method and empiricism, is like saying:

"The Americans have criticized the Chinese for not liking any type of football. In a related criticism, their leaders have been accused of not liking soccer."

If some group of people doesn't like any type of football, its completely redundant to start listing the various types of football (e.g. soccer) the leaders of this group don't like. Not to mention that you can't criticize the so called leaders of a school for the same thing you've already criticized their entire school of. In that case, the criticism section could be just one big run down of "critiques" against individual Austrian economists. Misessus (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope putting criticism responses into footnotes has resolved this. (If need be, more footnoting can be added.) But can we

) 18:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sachs/Shenoy edits

Re recent Sachs/Shenoy edits. This is not a question of notability, especially as to the notability of the authors of the criticism or counter-criticism. (E.g., both Sachs and Shenoy are notable.) And it really isn't about the notability of the particular topic/sub-topic. That is, Sachs is quoted with his observations and conclusions -- so doesn't he raise a notable topic? And since he has raised the topic, isn't that topic in the mainstream? Indeed, hasn't he raised a notable topic?. Since this is a notable topic from mainstream thought which criticizes the AS, it is appropriate for a response to be posted. And as Sachs is the "Mainstream" economist who is raising the criticism, how can we find another Mainstream economist to respond? If we did, that counter-mainstream critic would be .. . . . heterodoxical perhaps?

WP:SYN

, there is acceptable synthesis so long as it does not "advance a new position."

Y Smith claimed that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another author's book. Jones responded that it is acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

In our case "each . . . sentence is carefully sourced, using a source that refers to [the] dispute."--S. Rich (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:NNC. Even so, Sudha Shenoy has met notability guidelines -- she has an article. And thefreemanonline.org is published by the Foundation for Economic Education. This [5]

deletion of the material, if based on notability, is improper. If there are weight or RS issues, bring them up here.

"In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." Like a page on the Austrian School of Economics? byelf2007 (talk) 26 August 2011

I have been quite clear that the issue is NPOV. My response is can be found below at

Talk:Austrian_School#Shenoy_and_thefreemanonline.org. BigK HeX (talk

) 18:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You've been quite clear many times and proven wrong quite clear many times. Misessus (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope putting Shenoy into a footnote has resolved this. Can we

) 18:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Confusing and incorrect description(s) under Fig. 1

The description in the box under Fig. 1 is confusing and contains a few errors (or at least misleading or ambiguous statements). I'm reluctant to edit the discussion myself because I'm not an Austrian economist and might unintentionally introduce material or terminology that Austrians consider incorrect or irrelevant. Here are a few of the points that need to be clarified or corrected; this list is not intended to be exhaustive. The Fed's Web site http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12845.htm as well most "mainstream" (for want of a better term) principles or money and banking texts contain definitions of money-supply concepts that could easily be used to fit the purposes of this chart.

1. The chart's vertical axis should be explicitly identified as being a log scale, not a linear one. (Hence, vertical distances aren't additive linearly.)
2. The chart's title should refer to the "money supply", not "monetary supply". The former would be consistent with the correct terminology used in the first line of the explanation.
3. In the sentence "Included are the printed dollar bills, as well as other bank notes in circulation and the quantity of bank deposits subject to check" [italics added], does the phrase I've italicized here refer simply to all paper money in circulation? Dollar bills generally refers specifically to $1 bills, so does this phrase intend to draw some distinction between $1 bills and other denominations of notes? (And technically, "bank notes" is ambiguous—they're Federal Reserve [Bank] notes, not "notes" issued by commercial banks.)
4. The money supply also includes coins in circulation (although their total value is quite small compared to the value of paper money in circulation). Because the term currency includes both coins and paper money, that more inclusive term should be used, as it is in the following sentence and in the diagram itself.
5. The term checkable deposits is used later in the discussion, so why not just use that term in the above sentence, instead of the awkward, longer phrase "the quantity of bank deposits subject to check"?
6. In the next sentence, "currency printed by the Federal government (through the Federal Reserve)" is oversimplified to the point of being misleading, or even inaccurate. The Federal government does not in any sense print "currency" through the Fed. The U.S. Treasury mints the coins and prints the paper money, and this currency is put in circulation by the Fed.
7. The rest of that sentence says, "the checkable deposits is the green line in the middle", but on the chart, the green line is clearly labeled "M1", which includes currency as well as checkable deposits. (Also, using the plural "deposits" with the singular verb "is" is grammatically awkward. This could be reworded to say, "The green line in the middle shows M1, the sum of currency in circulation and checkable deposits.)
8. The last sentence refers to M2 including "funds held in private institutions", which most WP readers are unlikely to understand. They may misinterpret "private institutions" to mean banks and S&Ls, and of course, currency in the vaults of those institutions is not in circulation, therefore it isn't counted as part of the money supply. Instead, the discussion should say that M2 includes funds held by nonbanking private institutions, primarily money market mutual funds.
9. The last sentence again refers to "currency printed by the Federal government," which again is inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say "currency in circulation" here.

--Jackftwist (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please go ahead and make those corrections. As far as I can tell, no real Austrian economist (as in one who actually publishes peer-reviewed academic papers) edits here. LK (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Under "Inflation", we have "Accordingly, many Austrian School economists support the abolition of the central banks and the fractional-reserve banking system, advocating that the market should choose what is used as money[63]." The most relevant quote I could find in the reference is: "Thus to answer the question you posed: I do not believe that "private fractional-reserve banking," as it is commonly understood in debates among libertarians and Austrians today, should be illegal. It is a self-contradictory concept that could never be formulated into a meaningful contract on a free market. Meaningful contracts would result in true financial intermediaries which did not issue currency and create money but simply invested and managed people's short-term savings in a portfolio of highly liquid assets while offering a payments mechanism to transfer funds to third parties. In fact, I am all in favor of modern money market mutual funds as well as historical "free banking" arrangements as exemplified in the Indian case."

Does the reference support the text adequately? -- Thanks -- Jo3sampl (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. TFD (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Salerno discusses what money is, saying that he holds the conventional view that money is a universally accepted medium of exchange. This is the Austrian view. Virtually no Austrian says that money is gold, though many of course recognize that gold can and has been used as money. Ron Paul often talk about allowing competing currencies instead of introducing a gold standard, inter alia in his hearings as chairman of the subcommittee on domestic monetary policy. Misessus (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not whether the text is accurate but whether the reference supports it. It is not clear that it does, although it is consistent with what the text says. TFD (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

True, I added a source that was perhaps more to the point. Anyway, Rothbard is actually rather alone in his strong advocacy of a gold standard. The typical Austrian just wants competing currencies and let the market decide. I don't think there is any Austrian who advoacted a government mandated gold standard or any other sort of government money. Misessus (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Misessus, please consider using the quote feature when you add refs. I imagine you would have highlighted some part of this excerpt:

--- Daily Bell: We are well aware that Ron Paul seeks a gold standard and in a perfect world the end of the Fed. Can you reaffirm this position for our readers? Rockwell: Yes, though he does not seek a monopoly for anything, including gold. He wants money to be rooted in market experience. It is not complicated. Daily Bell: We have noted what we think is a softening of an institutional position regarding the gold standard – and the possibility that free-banking would be a considered option as well. Is this a correct observation of your organizations' stance? Rockwell: I wouldn't say that we have an official position. There are many ways to move to free-market money and non-inflationary banking. I would never want to close off any viable path. One problem with the Misesian plan for a gold standard is that it relies on the idea that the people in charge will do the right thing. This is a charming, old-world idea, but I don't think it holds true in our times. We need to be open to the possibility that reform will never come from the top. Daily Bell: Are you sympathetic to a private gold-and-silver standard or is a gold standard always preferable? Rockwell: I am all for competing metals. But a true specie standard is always private, and it always leaves room for competing currencies. --- Jo3sampl (talk)

Recently editors have been trying to insert material based on a ref to [6]. I've challenged this material on

) 18:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view.".

The inclusion of these non-notable "counter-criticisms" are a blatant attempt to violate this pretty clear NPOV directive. BigK HeX (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

S.Rich has made the case for including Shenoy's text already. Responses to criticism should be included in the criticism section. Shenoy's article is a direct response to Sachs, which conforms with policy. By your logic, it wouldn't be permissible to include any Austrian response, and as we've concluded above, sites such as Mises.org and similar are perfectly appropriate for this section. As I see it, you don't have a leg to stand on here. Misessus (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"sites such as Mises.org and similar are perfectly appropriate for this section"

No one "concluded" any such thing. The usefulness of Mises.org was severely questioned and by policy is severely limited. BigK HeX (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but I'm tired of pointing this out (on this article's very discussion page no less): The examples of "SMALL minority" on the NPOV page are "claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar." There's also " For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." The Austrian School is clearly more popular and/or more plausible and/or more scientific that these. BigK HeX, you'll only win on this point if you can convince us that the Austrian School is on par with Holocaust and Moon Landing denialism. Byelf2007 (talk) 26 August 2011

I have zero obligation to prove any such parity between Moon hoaxes and Austrian economics. The meaning of the NPOV page is clear, regardless of the examples used. Articles on Wikipedia are to be written to reflect the prominent understanding. These attempts (largely by User:Misessus) to suggest any sort of equal validity between Austrian claims and mainstream economics are a unacceptable violation of NPOV, when it is well known that the Austrian School views clearly are NOT granted much prominence among respected relevant experts. BigK HeX (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I second Byelf's comment. I would also like to add that both BigK and DC never bother to carry the burden of proof when they add something to the article, nor are they shy to delete sourced text on the flimsiest of grounds. I would like to remind everybody that WP policies and rules don't only concern what goes and doesn't go into an article, but also the way in which articles are edited.

There is wide, well-motivated support for including Shenoy's text. There is no reason for claiming that thefreeman.org isn't a good enough source, especially after having reached agreement on the mises.org site, and the Daily Bell. The article was in direct response to Sachs article. There simply is no grounds for removing it and by my count it has the support of three editors, with two opposed.

In addition, no one has claimed parity between Austrian and mainstream. What has been claimed (and agreed) is that Austrian sources are appropriate for this section. You've been wrong on every single edit thus far, and are wrong again. Misessus (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

BigK Hex: You said you have "zero obligation to prove any such parity between Moon hoaxes and Austrian economics" yet you didn't explain why, except to say "The meaning of the NPOV page is clear". Yes, it is. It explains that "SMALL minority" viewpoints are not given parity, not just a "minority" viewpoint. You also claim that the examples the page gives are irrelevant. This is ridiculous. Why have them there then? The examples are there for people to get an idea of what a "SMALL minority" viewpoint is. A small minority viewpoint would be like (the examples used) Holocaust denialism, moon landing denialism, claims that the Earth is flat, and claims about Knights of the Holy Templar getting the Holy Grail. Those are examples of ideas with the flimsiest of evidence. You may think the Austran School viewpoints are generally crazy compared to other economic schools, but that doesn't mean they're on par with the examples given on NPOV. Which, I suppose, is why you've essentially claimed by fiat that the NPOV page says "minority" instead of "small minority" and that the examples it gives are irrelevant (I guess they're just there to confuse us). Apparently, a "small minority" is just whatever you want it to be. Also, this is a page on the Austrian School, not on a general economic topic (crowding out, supply+demand, deadweight loss, etc.). If it were a general economics page, even then it would still be appropriate to have an Austrian School example follow a Monetarist/Keynesian one. However, can't you at least agree that the Austrian School page have Austrian responses to criticisms? Are the Austrians simply not allowed to have their responses to mainstream arguments on their own page? Should we eliminate the responses of ANY minority position even on their own pages? How is anyone to learn about the arguments in any debate? Finally, no one is trying to give "equal validity" to Keynesianism and Austrianism. Telling people about one side's arguments and another's does not imply they are equally valid. What is being debated is "parity", as in, "does this argument get to follow another?" Byelf2007 (talk) 26 August 2011

The grounds for removing it are that WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES ARE WRITTEN TO ACCURATELY WEIGHT VIEWPOINTS. Trying to dig up some minority Austrian counter-criticism to post along with every criticism discussed in the mainstream does not even attempt to reflect the proper prominence. However, your regard for NPOV has been made quite clear by your constant edits which appear to have the article rewritten from the minority viewpoint.

This Shenoy material is poorly sourced, is UNDUE, and is doubtless an attempt to give equal validity to a minority viewpoint. BigK HeX (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please stop your hysterical shouting? Shenoy is a notable historian and it was agreed earlier that Austrian or Austrian leaning sites were appropriate for the Austrian responses to mainstream criticisms. You can't revoke an agreement just because you don't like the response. And it is just that, a direct response to Sach's article. You tried this shouting-down business with Mises and Schiff earlier. You are not the sole arbiter of what is and what isn't an appropriate source. Stop acting as though you owned this article. Misessus (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Including the Austrian argument DOES NOT mean the article is being written from an "Austrian viewpoint". You may as well claim it's written by a Keynesian viewpoint because the Keynesian view is there. It would only be written from an "Austrian viewpoint" if the article said all Austrian claims were indisputable facts. Byelf2007 (talk) 26 August 2011

"it was agreed earlier that Austrian or Austrian leaning sites were appropriate for the Austrian responses"

No such thing was ever agreed. We know you disregard all who disagree with you, but just because you, personally, have agreed with something doesn't mean that any sort of editorial conclusion has been reached. BigK HeX (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think he might be referring to the "Is David Gordon notable by wikipedia's standards?" section on this page, but I'm not sure. Byelf2007 (talk) 26 August 2011

Please beware muddling "minority viewpoints" on a given topic with notions as to whether a topic itself is a "minority viewpoint." Austrian School economics is not "

FA Hayek, an Austrian School economist who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 1974, which, for those who like these (fuzzy and far-too-often-hurled) labels, puts him quite into the "mainstream" as to sourcing here. Likewise mises.org, which carries much scholarly and highly reliable sourcing on the topic of Austrian School economics. If a topic on a field of study or outlook is not the most popular one taught in schools or written about in wide and sundry sources, this doesn't mean it can or should be called "fringe" by en.Wikipedia editors. Editors are kindly and humbly reminded, when making an edit to this article or talk page, to ask themselves, "If my outlook on this topic were flipped otherwise, would I make this edit?" Long tale short, that's what neutrality here is about. Gwen Gale (talk

) 20:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt there is any dispute that Austrian School is a minority viewpoint, often promoting views contradictory to the majority viewpoint [mainstream neokeynesian economics]. The Austrian School is NOT mainstream economics. Mises.org alone is NOT a reliable source for economic understanding. Works published solely by Mises.org can be treated under SPS rules with all of the attending caveats, but any other uses are dubious at best. The ideas of Ludwig von Mises which remain under the Austrian School are NOT mainstream economics, regardless of who his students may have been. BigK HeX (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

With this being said, the attempts to downplay the minority viewpoint status are NOT in compliance with the policies of NPOV. There are constant attempts to rewrite this article as if the Austrian viewpoints are considered to have equal validity as economics published in mainstream journals. These attempts will continue to be rebuffed. Austrian sympathizers may see Wikipedia as the place to Right Great Wrongs about the regard for Austrian economics, but our most fundamental policies forbid such efforts. BigK HeX (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Austrian sources fall under

WP:FRINGE when they're being used as sources for economic causality or history, as I argued on the ECON talk page. The word "fringe"--as used on Wikipedia--is a lot more inclusive than what you or I would probably mean is casual discourse. That said, Austrian school material that is in the mainstream of Austrian opinion is not fringe in the context of Austrian opinion.--Dark Charles (talk

) 03:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The policy is at

WP:Battle than anything else. Gwen Gale (talk

) 03:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Mises.org is an interesting website and I enjoy reading the articles. However it is not a reliable source either about Austrian economics or economics in general. It is not written as an academic journal and does not pretend to be one. On the other hand, Moveon.org and Larryflynt.com are not good sources for Keynsian economics. TFD (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The pith is, any alikening of mises.org to Larryflynt.com is empty (and I would say, highly unhelpful to the building of an encyclopedia). Mises.org carries/hosts many scholarly publications. It is a vast and reliable source on the topic of Austrian School economics. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Mises.org is the web site of the Mises Institute. It is a web portal that aims to collect and distribute all work done by Austrians and has done remarkably well. It runs a book store, provides a large portion of Austrian books for free, arranges seminars, conferences and other academic events, even actual courses open to the public. Everything that is published as a Daily Article is screened by Austrian scholars and editors prior to publishing. It also houses the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.

To say that it isn't a reliable source about Austrian economics or economics in general is blatantly, demonstrably false.

Mises.org and sourced found on that page has been used throughout the article. There is no reason to object to it now. Misessus (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits seem to have resolved this discussion. Can we

) 18:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

On the "footnote AS responses" idea: This is NOT acceptable to me, and I've already explained why. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 August 2011

Not that I care to encourage attempted filibusters, but I'll reiterate my objections on Shenoy, WRT the NPOV policies and particularly

WP:GEVAL. BigK HeX (talk

) 07:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)