Talk:Austrian school of economics

Krugman's claim about increased spending

This doesn't make any sense. The Austrian theory proposes that prices rise right before the crash. This is because of the realization of the inflation, or in other terms, the realization of the "forced savings" that went on in the boom which causes a fall in the ability to command consumer goods. So, consumption would fall right before (the part that Keynesians can never explain, but this is besides the point) the crash. Then businesses would fail. So, isn't Krugman's criticism invalid and therefore not applicable to the criticism section? - Phattonez (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1. Are you seriously suggesting that we remove a reliable source because of your original thought experiment purporting to show that the source is wrong?
2. Do you truly believe that you are smarter than a Nobel prize winner?
3. The point Krugman makes (and that AS has no way of answering) is, since productive capacity has not changed, and if Say's Law holds (which AS believes), why does total economic activity drop during a bust? If production remains constant and supply creates it's own demand, then a drop in one type of demand (investment), would be made up for by increases in other types of demand.
4. You're also wrong about consumption falling before the crash. Both consumption and investment rises during a boom.

LK (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Some responses:

1. Yes, I am seriously suggesting that we remove a reliable source because this source is wrong. He doesn't understand the Austrian perspective.
2. An appeal to authority? I guess because a Nobel Prize Winner believes it, it must be true. I wonder what Hayek thinks about that.
3. Because you don't understand Say's Law. Say's Law states that DESIRABLE production creates its own demand. No one has ever seriously put forward the proposition that because you produce it someone will buy it. Overproduction occurs because the inflation is not instantly realized. Once it is realized, consumption falls because of increasing prices, and so investors realize that their investments have not paid off because they won't get the demand that they expected because prices adjusted.
4. Obviously consumption and investment rise during the boom, that is the definition of a boom! I said that RIGHT BEFORE THE BUST consumption decreases.

Phattonez (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm striking some comments above, they're kinda snarky, unnecessarily antagonistic and unhelpful in this situation. Let me start again, and try to explain policy here on Wikipedia, and why it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong about Krugman's argument.

The principle for inclusion in WIkipedia is verifiability not TRUTH. We do not edit articles based on what you, me or anyone thinks is true, rather, we look to what reliable sources (such as peer-reviewed articles, university textbooks, respected journals, magazines and newspapaers) have stated on a subject, to decide what to include in articles here. So, Krugman being a noted expert in economics, and having published in a reliable source on this subject, we need to include his argument on this page regardless of whether we believe it's true or untrue.

Essentially, we need to have a little less faith in our own beliefs, and a little more faith in the mainstream scientific establishment. A principle that I think almost everyone should follow in their everyday life. We humans do tend to be a little too sure of ourselves. LK (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but it's such a stupid argument (Krugman's) that I feel it's not doing this page any justice. What if I found a source that contradicts what Krguman is saying? Wouldn't that be fine to put after his part? - 75.85.53.11 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a few factors that determine if new content is suitable for inclusion. Possibly the two to factors to assess first are notability and reliable sourcing. Some "lone wolf" who writes up an opinion that hasn't attracted any attention probably isn't notable enough to mention. A theory posted on some gold-selling forum probably will encounter RS problems. BigK HeX (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Austrian School is considered a heterodox school, meaning it is outside of the mainstream. As a result, many denounce it for that reason alone. Why do we always believe that just because a majority of people believe something to be true, that it actually is? Since truth is obviously a subjective idea, and there is no way to establish an objective agreement on what truth is, the only objective thing in the world is that truth is subjective. It matters to time, place, culture, etc. Our definition of what is true is always changing, as individuals, as a society, and as a species. When new, reveleant information comes along, we must analyze it along with the previously established information, hopefuly making the best decision and adding this useful information into our dialog on human existence. Joseph Schumpeter, an Austrian Economist, classified this as Creative Destruction, that is innovation and entrepreneurship will radically change our perceptions and our paradigms for every single activity. I hate to say it, but sometimes we purposely ignore relevant information for our own selfish purposes, and often ignore it because we are simply ignorant. Choosetomind (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:TRUTH. Short version - Wikipedia does not document what should be or could be, but what is, and in terms relevant to how that "thing" is viewed relative to similar "things". Austrian economics is regarded as heterodox, so that is how Wikipedia describes and treats it. Wikipedia does not analyze, but reports what others analyze (see WP:RS). Ravensfire (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not that Krugman "doesn't understand the Austrian perspective", it's that he's concluded (as have most other economists) that the "Austrian perspective" is flawed and inaccurate. RedXIV (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Krugman either fails to understand Austrian economics, or deliberately misrepresents it to further his statist agenda. i would say that the former interpretation is more charitable.76.103.102.240 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right of course he either doesn't understand it or is evil. Right. Because if you're good and you understand it, then there's no reason you wouldn't side with them~ </sarcasm> Cosman246 (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Krugman has stated MANY times that he's an "unabashed proponent of the welfare state." 50.55.156.188 (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a separate objection to the same text; it is written as if this all-inclusive "empirical observation" is fact, but it is not, as demonstrated by all of the reports making a big deal of spending in industries such as cosmetics being unaffected or actually helped by the current recession. Spending in the majority of sectors may fall, but the real empirical observation is that not all do. Could someone improve this part of the article to better reflect the nuances of the situation? Ergbert (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I checked the Krugman article and it seems, to me, like the text in the Wikipedia article is a bit of a stretch. The point of the Krugman's article was that if recessions are caused simply by a reallocation of resources from consumption to investment or vise-versa--as Austrian economists believe--then unemployment would stay constant. Krugman then states that Hayek and Schumpeter's explanation of unemployment is that it's caused by the transfer of workers from one sector to another. Krugman then states this is unreasonable, because that would imply that unemployment would be high during the boom as well, because there is worker transfer then too. So it seems to me like things might need to be reworked a bit in the article.

It's true, however, that aggregate spending does decrease at the exact time that the recession happens, because recessions are just a decline in aggregate economic activity. Sometimes that decrease in spending is due to a shortage of supply--so people can't spend or can't afford to spend as much as what is need for stability--and sometimes it's because people just don't want to spend, but it's always due to lack of spending. --Dark Charles 21:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I can't understand how Krugman can be considered an expert. Paul Samuelson won the Nobel Prize too, but as late as 1989(!), he was adamant that the USSR would overtake the US, a position he had held for decades. So if winnig the Nobel Prize is the only credential Krugman has, then he is no expert. Bear in mind that Krugman is a keynesian as much as Samuelson, and hold the same beliefs and theories as Samuelson did. In addition, Krugman has on several occations shown that he simply doesn't understand the Austrian business cycle theory. Every time he tries to describe it he goes totally wrong, prompting the expression "krugmanite argument", which means you simply make something up, claim that it is your opponent's position and then argue against your own strawman, pretending your arguing against your opponent. This is Krugman's MO. This means that his "criticisms" doesn't mean anything, because he isn't really criticizing the Austrian position, he is criticizing his own made up fantasies. And speaking of ignorance, LK and BigHex have absolutely no business commenting on the Austrian school, because they are at least as clueless as Krugman.

Misessus (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, and you are an expert? Cosman246 (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is human nature to want to feel self-confident in knowing all the answers. strawman arguments are just one point. Krugman is a good example of an armchair Keynesian who likes the public limelight more than actual debate. Keynesians are nothing more than recycled Marxists.--  Novus  Orator  08:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, your personal opinions matter so much more than the hard work of an economist. Also, Keynes opposed Marx. Make of that what you will. Cosman246 (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Krugman's critique is verifiable and -- within Austrian circles -- is a well-known criticism related to the Austrian School. Any editor's personal grudges aside, that's sufficient for Wikipedia. We most certainly are not here to report only The Truth as preached by the Austrian School. BigK HeX (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Show me where Krugman's critique has been "verified". Robert Murphy has corrected Krugman on his erroneous accusations numerous times. Furthermore, it is clear you know nothing of the Austrian School so you have no business editing this article. I myself have refuted Krugman several times, it is very easy to do. As far as the edit goes, the section is AUSTRIAN criticism of the mainstream, not the other way around as it reads now. I'm reversing your undo. If you want to include the criticisms removed from that section you can put them in the section dealing with criticisms of the Austrian school. But since you don't know anything about anything related to AS, you'd do everyone a favor by staying the hell away. Misessus (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop edit warring. Given your past history in these situations, it probably won't end well. BigK HeX (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean your history of ideologue bullying? You are not competent to be an editor on this page. Get lost. Misessus (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, the demagogue's talking. I guess Wikipedia will be "LOOK HOW AWESOMELY SMART THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL IS EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG NO MATTER HOW QUALIFIED OR TRUTHFUL THEY ARE" Cosman246 (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh look, the ignorant little runt is running his ingnorant, bigoted mouth. Misessus (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

While a critic with as high a profile as Paul Krugman certainly deserves to be cited, I think that in the article on the Austrian School, an Austrian response (explicitly here for example) and explanation should be provided why Austrians believe his understanding of their business cycle theory is wrong (which they certainly go out of their way to explain). It isn't Wikipedia's job to report The Truth, however, in the article about a particular school of thought, it certainly is Wikipedia's job to report what they believe to be The Truth and why. --89.217.134.83 (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Schiff

I see that there was already a discussion about Schiff with lot of different opinions. Reason why I think that Schiff shouldn't be mentioned is because there is no source that establishes his relevance to the Austrian School. From what I can tell he is just some random investor who says he is a supporter of the Austrian School. That is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't merit a inclusion in this general article. -- Vision Thing -- 19:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with VisionThing. As has been explained above, the "criticisms" have been very weakly sourced indeed, both with regards to the Mises-bit (now removed) and Schiff. First it was claimed mainstream economists had criticized the Austrian School for its description of financial crises. No such criticism was leveled in the article, nor was it written by economists. I actually hadn't thought of the fact that the article actually doesn't claim Schiff to be an Austrian. I've been against the inclusion from the very beginning. Misessus (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also added Vedder's and Galloway's article on the 1946 depression prediction. This is arguably the most important case of mainstream getting it wrong, which supports its inclusion in this section of the article. Vedder's and Galloway's credentials as historians can hardly be disputed.Misessus (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Objection: "Schiff shouldn't be mentioned is because there is no source that establishes his relevance to the Austrian School."

Citation: "Several of the commentators (Schiff and Richebächer) adhere to the ‘Austrian School’ in economics,

which means that they emphasize savings, production (not consumption) and real capital formation as the basis of sustainable economic growth."159.119.153.72 (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits

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 [1] 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 BLOG. (Nothing was said about the other two sources.) When I reverted again, pointing out the 3 criteria listed in WP:USERG, Dark Charles reverts and seeks to add fourth criteria that says (in effect) "except for this NYT blog that is not subject to 'full editorial control' because in my [Dark Charles'] opinion the NYT staff who wrote the piece does not do fact checking." (Again, nothing is said about the other two sources.) Frankly, dear fellow editors, I have not even looked at the textual material under discussion let alone compared it to the three sources. But what I do see, from the deletion of material supported by three different sources, is an attempt to remove material because "you simply don't like what it says."--S. Rich (talk) 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"[2]) 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 WP:BLP. Also, Mises Inst. articles are essentially self-published, and are generally not RS about outside issues (such as what Romer may or may not have predicted). LK (talk) 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 WP:POLE allows for a push here and a push there. Byelf2007 has done a lot of pushing in rapid fire edits. For the most part, with my casual interest in the subject, I see the edits as properly WP:BOLD and worthwhile. If there are specific edits of concern (for example, this one: [3]) I suggest contacting User talk:Byelf2007 directly. In all of our discussions, I hope that WP:GA is the ultimate goal. --S. Rich (talk) 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)

Austrian response

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 WP:BOLD edits. Just Run it up the flagpole. Rather than simply citing "http://mises.org/daily/1230" (grad student Art Carden), give us full citation {Cite web} copy. See: WP:CTT for examples. Caveat: mises.org is fine as the repository of the cited info, but are these sources secondary or primary? Primary sources require "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 Synthesis. e.g. when Sachs states that 'the Nordic countries prove that Hayek was wrong about high tax rates leading to economic stagnation', you cannot post random Austrian complaints about Nordic countries as a response. That is forbidden by 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 WP:N that Caplan may or may not have. Is he a WP:RS? As a professor at an accredited institution, I think he does so long as he is writing about subjects in his lane. A person notable enough to be in WP (for example, Robert Solow) would not be a RS if he wrote about, say, hydrology. Many of our sources are from news media written by reporters with no notability at all. The real concern in this discussion is how do we WP:POLE to improve WP? --S. Rich (talk) 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 WP:CLOSE?--S. Rich (talk) 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:DUE says: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." Sachs and Shenoy are now balanced. WRT WP:SYN, there is acceptable synthesis so long as it does not "advance a new position." Template:Quote box4 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)

BigK HeX misconstrues WP:NOTE as a criteria for including or excluding material in an article. "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list." (Also see: 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 [4] 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 WP:CLOSE?--S. Rich (talk) 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)

Reference added Feedback please

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)

Shenoy and thefreemanonline.org

Recently editors have been trying to insert material based on a ref to [5]. I've challenged this material on WP:NPOV grounds, given the source which does nothing to show the view has any encyclopedic notability and that it attempts to give equal validity to a minority school of thought largely disregarded by the majority of relevant experts. I'll remind people that Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. If there hasn't been a peep about certain views among the majority of relevant experts, then Wikipedia surely isn't the place to promote these views. Editors supporting inclusion of the Shenoy material are free to explain how the text conforms to policy. BigK HeX (talk) 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 "WP:Fringe," Ludwig Von Mises was not "fringe," Von Mises mentored 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:V. Inclusion has to do with verifiability, not truth (please see also WP:Truth). The policy says nothing about "validity." As to what's "mainstream" and what's "fringe," from the outlook of en.WP sourcing policy I think a Nobel prize easily trumps claims as to the latter. Austrian School is not fringe. This article's content comes down to consensus {WP:Consensus), which is not a vote and which can (and will) shift now and then, whatever volunteer editors of any outlook may do at this time. The notion that good faith edits on this topic will be "rebuffed" reminds me more of 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 WP:CLOSE?--S. Rich (talk) 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)

Paragraph 2, Shenoy, mises.org etc, fringe

Looks like it is time to gather the main talking points in one section again.

Regarding paragraph 2: 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.

Regarding Shenoy and Mises.org: 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) 05:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding fringe: As Byelf, GwenGale and S.Rich have noted:

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.

"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?"

The policy is at WP:V. Inclusion has to do with verifiability, not truth (please see also WP:Truth). The policy says nothing about "validity." As to what's "mainstream" and what's "fringe," from the outlook of en.WP sourcing policy I think a Nobel prize easily trumps claims as to the latter. Austrian School is not fringe. This article's content comes down to consensus {WP:Consensus), which is not a vote and which can (and will) shift now and then, whatever volunteer editors of any outlook may do at this time. The notion that good faith edits on this topic will be "rebuffed" reminds me more of WP:Battle than anything else.

The Austrian viewpoint is clearly not fringe anymore, certainly not so that it is made NPOV. Just because it is a minority, does it make it small, fringe or otherwise irrelevant. Nor does including responses from Austrians to specific claims by critics give undue weight to the Austrian view point, and it certainly doesn't make the article written from an Austrian view point. To claim that is ridiculous. Every edit has been sourced and supported by senior editors.

BigK and DC are doing the exact same thing they did when they fought for the inclusion of the Schiff and Mises-bits earlier, and against the inclusion of the Hazlitt and Hansen bits. The burden of proof has been carried several times over by several editors. These two do not own the article, and are in no position to arbitrarily decide what goes in and what doesn't, deleting and reverting every edit without any consent from the talk page. Unless there is a consensus against deleting paragraph 2 and including Shenoy, these edits should be carried out and remain. Misessus (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As to your first point, empiricism and the scientific method are not equivalent. You can reject the latter and not the former, e.g. David Hume. The first paragraph also talks about formulating theories in terms of mathematics and making "positive" contributions to economics.--Dark Charles (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Remind me would you, how exactly David Hume used the scientific method but rejected empiricism. Misessus (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that the following is noted in the very first sentence of paragraph 2: "...application of empirical data is fundamental to the scientific method." The two paragraphs level the exact same criticism and should therefore be removed. Misessus (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The scientific method implies empiricism, but the reverse is not true. And Hume rejected the notion of induction, which means logically speaking you can't make general propositions about nature from past events. See the Problem of induction.--Dark Charles (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, you've brocken WP:3rr: 1, 2, 3, and 4.--Dark Charles (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a novel interpretation of Hume. Could you point to the Mises.org article that explains it that way? TFD (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to know if you're being sarcastic... I don't think there is a Mises.org article about it. You can read about Hume's problem of induction in his book Treatise of Human Nature. Karl Popper's book The Logic of Scientific Discovery is also really good, though I never finished it.--Dark Charles (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The recent edits by User:Byelf2007 seem to have put these issues to rest. Can we WP:CLOSE?--S. Rich (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Not paragraph 2, which is what Misessus erased.--Dark Charles (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me the specific edit please?--S. Rich (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC) I found it.18:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This, Misessus' argument seems to be empiricism and the scientific method are identical, which is false. Further more, as I said earlier there's actually a whole bunch of stuff in the first paragraph besides the scientific method stuff.--Dark Charles (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

DC, first, you didn't explain or support your position one bit. Second, the very first sentence in the erased paragraph stated that empiricism is fundamental to the scientific method. In my view, the criticism section is overly generous to the mainstream view, having moved all the Austrian responses to the footnotes. I find that solution quite ridiculous. If the responses can be in the footnotes, there is no reason why they can't be incorporated in the section. Also, I believe even mainstream economists such as Christina Romer have debunked the myth about the Long Depression in the 1870s, so it should be removed. Misessus (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Re empiricism, the scientific method, and philosophical controversies thereof: My college philosophy course was a long time ago, but it may be helpful to consult Empiricism, assuming you consider WP a reliable source. The excerpt below from section 1.1 ("Usage") basically supports Dark Charles's point that "empiricism and the scientific method are not equivalent," but the distinction is subtle. The article left me confused about Hume's view, in particular, though (see section 2.3, "British Empiricism"); John Locke, Descartes, and the other heavyweights cited below may be better examples of philosophers who accepted this distinction. The excerpt:

Philosophical empiricists hold no knowledge to be properly inferred or deduced unless it is derived from one's sense-based experience. This view is commonly contrasted with rationalism, which asserts that knowledge may be derived from reason independently of the senses. For example John Locke held that some knowledge (e.g. knowledge of God's existence) could be arrived at through intuition and reasoning alone. Similarly Robert Boyle, a prominent advocate of the experimental method, held that we have innate ideas. The main continental rationalists (Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz) were also advocates of the empirical "scientific method". [Emphasis added. Note: I omitted references that aren't hot links because they wouldn't render properly on a Talk page.]

BTW, I came to this article like any typical WP user would: seeking basic information about the Austrian school of economics, about which I know very little, so I have absolutely no pre-formed opinions one way or the other about the debate in this section. Unfortunately, I must confess I didn't learn much from the article, and, with a few notable exceptions, the generally low quality, NPOV problems, and lack of civility of the discussion on this Talk page detracted from, rather than contributing to, my knowledge of the subject. No wonder we "non-Austrians" don't know much about the topic—too many of the "contributors" to this page don't know enough about the subject to offer constructive commentary, either! --Jackftwist (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Although a reasonable reading of Hume is "you can't make general propositions about nature from past events", I cannot find where he says that one may make general propositions about nature based on intuition. My impression was that this interpretation must be from Mises.org, because I never came across it. TFD (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The essense of the Austrian approach is that economics is too complex to be described by empirically derived formulas and instead rely on intuition. That places them outside the scientific approach, which they freely admit, but some of their supporters consistently object to this description.. TFD (talk) 19:28, 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

First a note to Misessus: We're not talking about the Long Depression in the 1870s. We're talking about the second paragraph in the [old] criticism section. And I've always said that the scientific method implies empiricism (even that has been called into question a bit by Jackftwist's comment), by the way. My point was that the two are not equivalent, which has been your justification for the removal of the material.

Now onto empiricism and the scientific method. Empiricism is the belief that all meaningful knowledge is derived from experience. The scientific method is a system, which uses empiricism, to make true propositions about nature. These are not equivalent. You could object because induction is not rational, i.e. it's not valid to make inferences about the future from the past.

Here's why induction is not logically valid: For example, consider the sequence, 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,7 .... Reasonable folks, after looking at the first eight terms in the sequence would say that the next term in the sequence would be 2. However, there is nothing in any of the eight terms in the sequence that implies anything about the following term. The same goes for the use of induction in nature. For example, consider a billiards game. There is nothing within the cue or the eight ball that implies anything about where the eight ball goes when the cue ball hits it. But regardless, the scientific method makes observations about where the cue ball hits the eight ball and where the eight ball goes, and then with that information the scientist forms a hypothesis about it. If that hypothesis is tested and holds, then the theory is accepted. However, this process is not rational; nothing about the cue or eight ball implies anything about where the eight ball goes when it's hit. The scientist has made his theory simply by observing past events and then making a general conclusion. Thus--in some sense--it is rational to reject scientist's proposition about the relationship between where the eight ball is hit and where it goes. Since this process is applied to all scientific propositions, one can reject them all in the same way. But simply because you've rejected this doesn't mean that you've rejected the notion that all meaningful knowledge is derived from experience.--Dark Charles (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You still need to explain how this means that we can make general propositions about nature based on intuition. TFD (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Intuition? I don't understand. As far as my own personal opinion about making general propositions about nature from intuition (not a typo): I don't believe you can. But that's not really important for this discussion.--Dark Charles (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

And I think Hume would probably categorize general propositions about nature based on intuition as nonsense. He was as straight an empiricist as they come... though it has been a long time since I've studied his stuff.--Dark Charles (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to re-phrase. You wrote that "you can't make general propositions about nature from past events". Could you please explain how one may make general propositions about nature. My understanding of your comments was that you were using Hume to defend the method of Austrian economists, which I assume make general propositions about nature without using past events. If so, I would be interested to read some article where they explain this. TFD (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to defend Austrian economics at all. The point of all this was simply to show that there is a difference between the scientific method and empiricism. Misessus was arguing that they were the same, and using that as justification for removing paragraph 2 of the criticism section. I accept the use of the scientific method to make general propositions about nature... the only problem is that my position is not rational. It's a matter of faith :(--Dark Charles (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

DC, what in that long and rather unlettered text proves your point that empiricism is somehow completely separate from the scientific method, and that you can use the scientific method without empirical data? Nowhere to be found. Now, you can give all your explanations you want, but you still haven't provided proof that these two are completely unrelated and thus merits separate paragraphs of "criticism". In this context, they have always been part of the same criticism as evidenced by the wording of paragraph 2, which states that empiricism is fundamental to the scientific method. Also, the very fact that this "criticism" is leveled against the so called leaders of the Austrian Shool and not the school itself shows that we are talking about the very same thing, but packaged differently. Given your open hostility towards the Austrian school, it is obvious that this is nothing but an attempt to find anything, something, to add to the criticism section. With this logic, you could have a 10-page criticism section, citing each criticism leveled by mainstream economists against every particular statement made by Austrian economists. This obviously wouldn't do, nor does this. You've been given every chance to make your case, and you've failed. Misessus (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that you didn't understand my explanation, but it's actually your job to explain why they're the same and why that justifies the deletion.--Dark Charles (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Misessus, what in that long and rather unlettered text proves your point that empiricism is somehow equivalent to the scientific method, and that using the scientific method is somehow the same as just any use of empirical data? Nowhere to be found. Now, you can give all your explanations you want, but you still haven't provided proof that these two are wholly related and thus do not merit separate paragraphs of "criticism". BigK HeX (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

BigK, your comments will be ignored as your only aim is to distort the article and muddle the discussion.

DC, I've already proved it. In the very first sentence, it says that empiricism is a fundamental part of the scientific method. To first criticize the AS for rejecting the scientific method, and then criticize its "leaders" for rejecting individual parts of the scientific method, is obviously redundant and serves no purpose other than inflating an already grossly distorted section. By what authority do you act as if you owned the article, and has the unilateral right to revert any edit or insert any material without ever having to make your case? Misessus (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is the authority. I see your problem: It's simply logic. Does the proposition "gas is fundamental for a car running" mean that a car running and having gas in it are the same? Saying "empiricism is a fundamental part of the scientific method" is the same as saying "the scientific method implies empiricism", which I've already said several times now. What you're doing is saying A implies B therefore A=B. That's not right. You also need to prove B implies A.--Dark Charles (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the car analogy was spectacularly weak. And as explained, the empiricism-criticism wasn't deleted, it was added to the overall criticism for rejecting natural science methodology formulated in paragraph 1. So its still there, but more appropriately included. The paragraph 2 was otherwise quite over-the-top anyway, more a rant of cheap shots than actual scientific criticism. Surely the WP page shouldn't sport ad hominem attacks and blatant mudslinging? Misessus (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Dark Charles misapplies WP:BURDEN. This WP:POLICY deals with burden of evidence with regard to providing RS for material. E.g., unsourced material can be removed and if someone wants to restore it, they must do so with RS to back it up. That is all that it says. And please note the paragraph immediately preceding BURDEN. WP:CHALLENGE says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source . . .. [my italics; bold in original]" It does not say the material has to be true or correct. Here DC is saying, in effect, "You have to prove that what you say is true." Again that is not our job as WP editors. WP editors meet their burden if they can quote a RS and give a citation of where the quote comes from. The argument above seems to revolve around how empiricism and scientific method interact or are related or are parts of each other, or whatever -- it is a distraction to the goal of producing a good article.--S. Rich (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Misessus: It wasn't an analogy. I was pointing out logical structure. Your reasoning is faulty. S rich: I'm restoring the text to the original version, so WP:BURDEN applies. The sourcing has never been challenged. Misessus' argument was that empiricism and the scientific method were identical, which is false. He has been using faulty logic to prove his point.--Dark Charles (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It was an analogy. Empiricism is a fundamental part of the scientific method, which is why these criticisms are related, as it was stated in the original text. Therefore, it makes sense to merge them into the same paragraph, instead of having a long, redundant paragraph consisting of little more than outright smear, like that slur about Mises. It's not necessary, nor is it appropriate. The key source was moved to paragraph 1. So there is no issue of burden here. You are doing the exact same thing you told me I wasn't allowed to do when I was discussing the nature of economic predictions. Howcome the rules always change so whatever you do is automatically sanctioned, but whatever anyone else do is automatically against the rules? Misessus (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sir, you can't rewrite WP:BURDEN just to push your agenda. If you make an edit, either inclusion or deletion of sourced material then the burden is on you. You can forget about the car example. What you're arguing is that the scientific method implies empiricism therefore the scientific method and empiricism are the same. That's faulty reasoning. I like that we're using logic because I know--with 100% certainty---that you're wrong. I'm sorry if you don't understand.--Dark Charles (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand the obligation. My point is that, first of all, I haven't deleted anything, second, I've included the criticism in the paragraph detailing the rest of the criticism related to the scientific method, and thirdly, that I have in fact carried the burden to the extent needed. I think that the way the criticism looks at the time of this writing is quite alright. Misessus (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You deleted the whole second paragraph and simply carried over one sentence, and rewrote one sentence in the first paragraph. What's your justification for the deletion of all the other stuff?--Dark Charles (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that you after the 10th or so time of unilateral reverts decided to actually engage in a discussion. I've explained my position many times already. The only actual criticism was contained in the first sentence of that paragraph, stating very clearly its connection to the broader criticism regarding the rejection of the scientific method. It even said the criticism was related. The rest of the article was very little more than mudslinging and pointless ad hominem against the "leaders" of the AS, though no such leaders have ever existed or exist today, in addition to poorly sourced quotes from some of these supposed leaders. It was wholly inappropriate and clearly nothing but an attempt to inflate the criticism section, for whatever reason. This article is about the Austrian school. Any criticism mentioned should be about the school of thought itself, i.e. its theories and methodology. Therefore, the last sentence about Mises being the typical unscientific economist isn't just blatantly wrong, its completely ridiculous and has no place whatsoever in the article on the Austrian School. If WP really wants to lower itself to such childish smear, it should limit that to the articles about the actual person. Claiming that Mises was this and that is in no way, shape or form a criticism of the Austrian School. That is why I'm removing that sentence.

Clear enough for you? Misessus (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse my annoyed tone, but I'm getting a bit frustrated with the way this article has been edited. All standards seem to have been thrown right out the window. It also bothers me that without the heroic efforts of people like GwenGale, S.Rich and Byelf, supposed guardians of WP rules and policies like you, BigK and LK would have been content with having the integrity and informative value of this article torn to shreds. Most, if not all, your objections and references to WP rules and polices have been proven to be misguided at best, blatantly wrong at worst. Aren't you supposed to take a neutral stance as senior editors, regardless of what article is in question, and also respect the expertise of those who clearly are more familiar with the subject matter? This is an honest concern on my part, so I should appreciate a serious answer from you. Thank you. Misessus (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I won't respond to the majority of your comments because I think they were violations of WP:CIVILITY and WP:NOTAFORUM. That said, saying that Hayek was a non-scientific economist is not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack on someone is when you attack someone personally instead addressing the argument at hand. The statement was a conclusion of the paragraph's argument, thus not an ad hominem attack. Also, arguing against leaders of Austrian economics is quite appropriate as well. The "Austrian School" is simply an abstraction of the lump sum of propositions made by the school's leading members. Just like how you were using predictions of members of the school to validate the Austrian School, criticisms of leading members of the Austrian School are criticisms of the school. My comment also covers your new argument for the deletion of the second paragraph of the old criticism section. FYI, I didn't re-add the second paragraph because the section has changed too much, but my same argument goes as far as the equivocation of empiricism and the scientific method. I'm reworking the criticism section a little on User:Dark Charles/Sandbox.--Dark Charles (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Calling someone the archetypical unscientific economist is clearly ad hominem. What's more, it is not relevant to an article about a school of thought. Such smears belong in the articles about the specific person you are smearing. If you want to go down that road, the whole criticism section could be filled with things mainstream economists have said about Austrian economists. That doesn't add anything to the informative value of the article. Regarding the predictions, I would remind you that I was against that whole section to begin with, but it was you among others that wanted it, without any consideration of what economic predictions actually are. Misessus (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring over Shenoy, etc

I've seen a series of edits and reverts over the inclusion of Shenoy in the Criticism section. Balance, Burden, Undue, Consensus, Redundant, etc. are all cited as justification. The last set of edits said she was used/cited not-used/cited twice. Previously there were spats over including the Austrian School responses to criticisms in the main text. (E.g., the spat is not limited to Shenoy.) I attempted to resolve this pissing contest by putting the AS responses in footnote form (and I see that Thomas Woods is still used both as a footnote response and as a citation). It really comes down to an unresolved dispute about providing AS responses to the criticisms in this sectopm. One set of editors says respond and the other set says don't. WP:CSECTION, WP:CRIT, and WP:CRIS do not directly address the issues -- like speed limit signs, they only provide guidelines. I submit that unless a Criticism of Austrian School economics article is created, the only way to equally dis-satisfy everyone is to include the criticism responses and to do so with footnotes. Each side gets their say -- criticism and response -- and the readers get helpful material in a fashion that is not unbalanced. Should the responses have more prominence in the main text? Actually I think they should. But I'm the editor who put these responses in a less prominent position in an effort to resolve this squabbling. Come on, Wikipedians, including the responses as footnotes is the only solution that can achieve genuine consensus. --S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Each side gets their say" is not necessarily an encyclopedic solution. Each side should get weighted properly, and that most certainly doesn't suggest that the minority Austrian view gets equal weighting to mainstream views. So far, every attempt at integrating Austrian "counter-criticisms" has suggested equal validity between the two views. To me, this seems a pretty clear violation of WP:NPOV, particular WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL.

In any case, I appreciate your earlier attempt to resolve the issue via footnoting. BigK HeX (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have striken my comment about creating a separate criticism article. My thought was that it could help resolve the controversy and that it would be similar to articles like Criticism of religion, Criticism of capitalism, or Criticism of the Israeli government. DarkCharles' comment and edit about forking, even if the separate article is strictly NPOV, is well taken.--S. Rich (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Criticism section

The way the criticism section reads at the time of this writing is quite okay, in my opinion. It brings up the most important, on point criticisms of the mainstream in a very readable, well sourced manner, without superfluous ad hominem comments. It also include a reasonable level of Austrian responses to the criticisms. In my view, there is no need for any further changes.

The Mises-slur is, again, completely redundant and serves no purpose whatsoever. I therefore suggest that the section is left as it is. Misessus (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Protected

The article has been fully protected for two weeks. See WP:AN3#User:Misessus reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: Protected). Please discuss the outstanding issues on the talk page and try to reach consensus. If agreement is reached, the protection can be lifted. A WP:Request for comment can be used to settle anything where the net result of the talk discussion is unclear. My own recommendation is that, in the future, admins should be alert for anyone reverting the article who appears to be ignoring the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

To that end, when the protection does lift and for so long as editorial bickering lasts, this page is likely headed towards an overall 1rr editing restriction for all editors, with a warning that 1rr will not be a licence to carry on the edit war by making one undo a day. The back and forth of edit warring brings only rot to an article. It's disruptive and harms article content in ways both unseen and unforeseen, from any outlook, by those who edit war. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In my experience with Austrian School, the bottom line problem I see is that there has never been much editorial interest, which nearly always leads to a failure in forging a respectable consensus. Hell .... the current editors probably couldn't even come to a consensus on whether Austrian School economics is a non-mainstream view even given the fact that it is almost never taught in economics curricula (with the exception of possibly only ~3 significant colleges in the entire country). BigK HeX (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason there's no "editorial interest" is because you in particular keep getting new users banned for both participating in discussion and developing valid rational refutation of your keynesian viewpoints. You should seriously be stripped of moderating privileges. Nodrogj (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I commented on editorial heed for this topic here. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I made some changes to the criticism section at User:Dark Charles/Sandbox. Please take a look at tell me what you think.--Dark Charles (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I hold a research masters degree in economics, and have taken so many doctoral courses on the subject. I'm amazed that the section is short and so much weight is given towards Austrian rebuttals. The article reads that many criticisms are simply one economists position. Its not. Vast majority of Economists do not take Austrian Theory seriously, and only one Ph.D. granting university in the United States puts an emphasis on Austrian Economics, which is George Mason. The broad rejection of Austrian theory should certainly be given much more weight than it is in this article, considering that one of the key leaders of the field Hayek actually ended up with a Nobel Prize in economics many decades now. The lack of acceptance of the field among an overwhelming majority of Academic and research economists is certainly of interest. The way the article is currently written is certainly in a style of point-counter point which reads like an intellectual debate, which insinuates there is an intellectual debate which is present. There is not really, since Austrian economics is for the most part ignored by the main stay of economics.

Just a general comment to editors, most of whom I'm sure have limited training in economics. There was a survey sent to academic departments trying to guage why academics do not use wikipedia. I think one of the key issues that need to be highlighted is that in social sciences it often is hard for academics to take wikipedia seriously, because intellectual debates are misrepresented with political movements. Economics articles on schools of economic thoughts are especially susceptible to this, since it wieghts OP-Eds in major news papers articles are far easier to source and located than articles such as academic commentary intended for academic consumption. For examples articles concerning Keynesian economics v.s other schools rarely pay attention to the much more important methological battle that took place in academia and over states the pro government spending conclusion in Keynesian economics. This article could probably be improved greatly if one is able to seperate Austrian economics as an academic phenomena, from Austrian economics as a modern they political movement. The two are losely related, but most of the people representing the political movement are not academic economists. As a result the states of the field are too different. 71.45.11.0 (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"which insinuates there is an intellectual debate which is present. There is not really, since Austrian economics is for the most part ignored by the main stay of economics." There is an academic debate going on (including here)--just because a position is unpopular doesn't mean it gets debated (Krugman wrote on ABCT as recently as January and Murphy responded a few days later). What are we supposed to do? Remove Austrian School responses to criticisms because their beliefs are unpopular? How is that neutral? And before you say it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austrian_School#Shenoy_and_thefreemanonline.org Byelf2007 (talk) 13 September 2011

Wow...you hold a masters degree in economics and have taken many doctoral courses? Is that supposed to impress us? Most professional economists are on the payroll of the FED, so of course they reject Austrian economics. AE is, however, the oldest continual school of economic thought. Moreover, it doesn't have the dismal track record of mainstream economics, which, to quote Bill Maher, is a litany of getting shit dead wrong. From the Wall Street crash 1929, to the non-existent depression of 1946, to the Bretton Woods system, the stagflation of the 1970s, the S&L crisis of the 1980s, the dot.com bubble of the 1990s and the housing bubble of the 2000s. From Keynes' suggestion to bury FED-notes in glass jars underground and let people dig them up, to Samuelson's insistence on the USSR overtaking the US from the early 1970s to 1989, to Krugman's Space Alien Invasion solution to our present day crisis.

Just to name a few examples of the top of my head. With a track record like that, of course they will shun the one school of thought that get things right, that understand what economics actually is and, more importantly, what it isn't.

It's not the mainstream economists that don't take AE seriously, it's the other way around. For good reason. So excuse me for not being all giggly about your supposed training in economics. Like Jefferson said, you'd be better informed of current events if you didn't read any newspaper at all than if you read those of his day. Likewise, you're likely to have a far better understanding of economics if you've never taken an economics course than having spent years studying Keynesianism, monetarism, neoclassicism or whatever mishmash of mainstream schools that gets taught in the universities today. Misessus (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Final sentence of introduction - unable to edit since protected

Any finite mathematical problem is decidable. Obviously. Really, really obviously. "Human behaviour" is finite. You could conduct the "mathematical modeling of a market" by literally modelling every single tiny nerve impulse in every single human being that has ever existed on this planet. This would be a finite problem. And so decidable. Please revise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.174.147 (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

and to model them finitely, you'd have to presume or prove that nerve impulses are not influenced by quantum effects. BigK HeX (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Or have a way to predict them. Casting aside the need to define what one calls finite, in some ways, the sum of human behaviour is indeed finite, but is it wholly finite? Even if it is finite, is anyone clever enough to gather all the data (without disrupting outcomes through measurement), find and map out all the variables and then show whether or not equations and algorithms can meaningfully model the sum outcome of human action (behaviour)? So far, the answer is "no," that aside from perhaps some dodgy and rough modeling of very small subsets, this has not been done, much less with Keynesian methodologies. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Human behavior is not a mathematical problem. End of discussion. Misessus (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's another way to put it. Editors might want to keep in mind that academics flogged the notion of luminiferous aether for a long time, some of them up until the 1960s. There is a place for sourced criticism of AS in this article, as there is a place for sourced criticism of Keynesian economics in articles within that topic area. This article is not the place, however, for a narrative hit piece on the Austrian school, nor is it within en.WP policy to build such a hit piece by excluding reliable and verifiable sources written by Austrian economists (much less those who worked as academics and were published as academics) as "fringe." Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing the not-at-all-disguised pro-Austrian bias from the article does NOT make it a "hit piece". The article currently goes to great lengths to promote Austrian economics far beyond its prominence in the real world. Eliminating such a bias is our duty as editors. BigK HeX (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that there is pro-Austrian bias is the article. What (specifically) are your arguments? Please avoid re-asserting your assertions. See my comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austrian_School#Shenoy_and_thefreemanonline.org Byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2011

needed SA

To be added to the See Also's once the economic blockade is lifted: Fear the Boom and Bust --S. Rich (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If you do that, be sure to add it to the "Keynesian economics" and "ABCT" articles. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 September 2011

Already been added and deleted in the past. Doesn't seem very appropriate for an encyclopedia. BigK HeX (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Does not seem appropriate to whom? I don't think there's any consensus on that.Nodrogj (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Does not meet external links requirements. TFD (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion is for the article to be added as a "See also", not as an External link. The appropriate forum for discussing that article is on its talk page. --S. Rich (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Dang, you beat me to it!Nodrogj (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments (from User:Dark_Charles/Sandbox)

Here are the comments from my sandbox. I don't think anybody will mind that I moved them here.--Dark Charles (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You've removed the Carilli and Dempster response to the irrationality criticism, so I wouldn't support this (but I don't care about the empirical debate which has been going on forever). Byelf2007 (talk) 7 September 2011

I thought it was badly sourced. Is there something more detailed that you could put in there? The source was an abstract on Springer's website. It would be like using a book description on Amazon as a source.--Dark Charles (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, as far as the empiricism issue: I'm kind of tired of the debate too. I just reworded the first paragraph a bit. The criticism section has changed so much that I think it would be best, if something about empiricism were added, for it to be something new, which I'm too lazy to do.--Dark Charles (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this would work better? http://consultingbyrpm.com/uploads/2010.12%20Rat%20Ex%20and%20ABCT.pdf Byelf2007 (talk) 7 September 2011

Yeah, looks like it. I don't see how the prisoner's dilemma factors in, so I'd like to add a little more detail to what was there before too. I'll try to do that tomorrow.--Dark Charles (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically, if you don't go into debt at the too-low interest rate but a competitor does, they benefit from the low interest rate and you don't, and you get forced out of business by their superior market share; if you and your competitors go into debt at the too-low interest rate, there's a lot of malinvestment, and the economy as a whole doesn't work well, so everyone suffers equally. I'll try to find more of the Carilli/Dempster thing than an abstract tomorrow. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 September 2011

I don't understand the relevance of the criticism relating to booms/busts prior to the Fed. Murray Rothbard did his doctoral dissertation on the Panic of 1819. Nowhere or anywhere in the ABCT is it said that business cycles can only occur if there is a central bank. The main charge is that artificially low interest rates fuel an investment boom in unsustainable projects, projects that cannot be completed because there isn't enough resources available to complete them all. Interest rates can be artificially low with or or without a central bank, because credit expansion alone causes an increase in the money supply which then leads to lower interest rates. Central banks have only exasperated this problem by dictating low interest rates outright, making them uniform throughout the economy, and of course provided various safeguards and guarantees for major banks, creating enormous moral hazards which in turn has increased the credit expansion and risk taking. So this whole idea that business cycles before the Fed is somehow a criticism against ABCT is completely baseless. There is an enormous body of Austrian literature on business cycles in the 19th century and earlier. So to summarize, this particular critique is a critique against something that in fact does not exist. They are criticizing the Austrians for a claim that the Austrians have never ever made. Remember that Mises started working on his business cycle theory before the Fed was even founded, and well before the crash of 1920 and then that of 1929. What I'm trying to say is that it would be nice to have the criticism section consisting of criticism that is actually aimed at something Austrians have said or done, not illusionary phantoms in the heads of various mainstream economists. Misessus (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with you. Just because the criticism "makes no sense" (and I agree it doesn't) doesn't mean we shouldn't mention it, as it is a common criticism. Byelf2007 (talk) 08 September 2011

Then I should like to see a more forceful response, because right now it looks completely out of place. Misessus (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I recommend you find a (good) link that more-or-less expresses your argument on this matter. Byelf2007 (talk) 09 September 2011

And another thing, just because a criticism is leveled, it doesn't mean that we as editors of an article can't be selective. Why do we have to incorporate criticisms that even from an objective and completely neutral point of view makes no sense whatsoever? Why is it a purpose onto itself to include every single delusional thing every mainstream economist have ever said about the Austrian School, no matter how misguided or factually incorrect? 88.114.255.18 (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Because it's a criticism that gets made. If you think it doesn't get made often enough to warrant mentioning, that's one thing, but I don't see why a common criticism shouldn't be mentioned just because it isn't remotely plausible. Byelf2007 (talk) 09 September 2011

Uhm...because of the very fact that it isn't even remotely plausible? Isn't that reason enough? :) Misessus (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Not until it stops getting made--it's common. Do you see my point? The wikipedia article isn't implying "This insightful criticism really merits serious thought" by mentioning it. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 September 2011

Murray Rothbard in The Mystery of Banking, page 103: "We already see here the outlines of the basic model of the famous and seemingly mysterious business cycle, which has plagued the Western world since the middle or late eighteenth century. For every business cycle is marked, and even ignited, by inflationary expansions of bank credit. The basic model of the business cycle then becomes evident: bank credit expansion raises prices and causes a seeming boom situation, but a boom based on a hidden fraudulent tax on the late receivers of money. The greater the inflation, the more the banks will be sitting ducks, and the more likely will there be a subsequent credit contraction touching off liquidation of credit and investments, bankruptcies, and deflationary price declines. This is only a crude outline of the business cycle, but its relevance to the modern world of the business cycle should already be evident."

The response could, e.g. inserted before the Carilli-Dempster repsonse, be the following:

"This criticism, however, is thoroughly misguided, because Austrians have never argued that only central banks cause business cycles. Instead, they argue that business cycles are caused by the expansion of credit by fractional-reserve banks, a phenomenon that has been present since the 18th century, in America and elsewhere, long before the Federal Reserve System was founded." Misessus (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The sixth paragraph is actually about business and banks being irrational by making and accepting loans that aren't in their interest. The seventh paragraph is the one that's actually about what you're saying, and already has a response.--Dark Charles (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, it should be inserted before the Woods-bit, cause Woods doesn't address the inaccuracy of the criticism itself. Something like this:

According to economic historians, economies have experienced less severe boom-bust cycles after World War II, because governments have addressed the problem of economic recessions.[21][22][23] Critics have also argued that, as the theory points to the actions of fractional-reserve banks and central banks to explain the business cycles, it fails to explain the existence of business cycles before the establishment of Federal Reserve in 1913. For example, the Panic of 1873 initiated the Long Depression in the United States and much of Europe. There were also severe market crashes in the United States of magnitude comparable to the 1929 crash in 1869, 1884, 1896, 1901, and 1907, though there was no central bank or national monetary policy in the US during these crises. In fact, the movement to establish central banking in the United States was in part a response to the business cycle, particularly the Panic of 1907.[24][25] This has especially been true after central banks were granted independence in the 1980s, and started using monetary policy to stabilize the business cycle, an event known as The Great Moderation. This criticism, however, is thoroughly misguided, because Austrians have never argued that only central banks cause business cycles. Instead, they argue that business cycles are caused by the expansion of credit by fractional-reserve banks, a phenomenon that has been present since the 18th century, in America and elsewhere, long before the Federal Reserve System was founded. Austrian School historian Thomas Woods also argues in his book Meltdown that the crashes were caused by various privately-owned banks with state charters that issued paper money, supposedly convertible to gold, in amounts greatly exceeding their gold reserves.[26] Misessus (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I would go with "misguided" not "thoroughly misguided" (peacock). Byelf2007 (talk) 10 September 2011

A response is already in there, and Austrians have been pretty consistent in blaming central banking for economic problems. Pointing out that the economy has been more stable and recessions have been less severe since the establishment of central banking is certainly not a misguided criticism. However, I changed "existence" to "severity" in the paragraph.--Dark Charles (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a misguided criticism of ABCT because it assumes that ABCT only applies to central banking and it doesn't. It is, however, a plausible criticism of opposition to central banking. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 September 2011

And the Austrian School is opposed to central banking. "The Austrian school has been battling the central bank since 1913 and before" (source). That was literally from the first result I got when I googled Austrian economics central banking.--Dark Charles (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Really dude? ABCT is not anti-central bank. And ABCT comes from AS, yes, and most AS people are anti-central bank (or perhaps tenets of the school itself is). That does not mean ABCT (a theory) is anti-central bank. You can support central banking and believe in ABCT (and want interest rates set "properly"). Byelf2007 (talk) 10 September 2011

Please DC, don't try to say what Austrians have or haven't done because you simply don't know anything about it. Austrians have never blamed the central bank solely, but they have acknowledged its important role in propping up the fractional-reserve banking system. However, it is the credit expansion that is seen as the main cause for the boom, and that is what commercial banks do, not central banks. Read the paragraph I cited from Rothbard's book. Does he even mention the central bank? Misessus (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you two checked the source, but that was the Mises Institute. The author of the article was Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. If I recall, that was the same author that wrote the Bretton-Woods source for the information Misessus put into the Austrian School article (information that has since been erased). And the paragraph Misessus cited didn't state whether the Austrian School is for or against central banking. I've clearly proven that the criticism in the criticism section is not misguided. I'm going to have to call WP:OR if Misessus's suggestion is put in (there was no source for it anyway). By the way, you two might want to fix the Austrian business cycle theory page introduction, because it reads: "The theory views business cycles as the inevitable consequence of excessive growth in bank credit, exacerbated by inherently damaging and ineffective central bank policies."--Dark Charles (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

#1-Hayek made ABCT, not the Mises Institute. #2-Do you know what "exacerbated" means? Byelf2007 (talk) 11 September 2011

You're arguing that the Mises Institute isn't a good source for information about Austrian Economics? You can't have it both ways; not too long ago Misessus was arguing that the Mises Institute was a fantastic source for information about Austrian Economics. And "to exacerbate" means to make things worse, but notice that it says "inherently damaging and ineffective" when it refers to central bank policies. If something is inherently damaging and ineffective, then it's inherently bad. Anyway, this is from an interview with Hayek:

Hayek: ...I believe that if it were not for govemment interference with the monetary system, we would have no industrial fluctuations and no periods of depression.

Reason: So trade cycles are caused solely by government monetary authorities?

Hayek: Not that directly. As you put it, it would seem that it results from deliberate mistakes made by government policies. The mistake is the creation of a semi-monopoly where the basic money is controlled by government. Since all the banks issue secondarv money, which is redeemable in the basic money, you have a system which nobody can really control. So it's really the monopoly of government over the issue of money which is ultimately responsible. Nobody in charge of such a monopoly could act reasonably (source).

That's an argument against central banking. So again, pointing out that the economy has been more stable since central banking is certainly not a misguided criticism. In fact, after reading this interview, I'm somewhat convinced that the original paragraph was probably fine too.--Dark Charles (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

#1 "not too long ago Misessus was arguing that the Mises Institute was a fantastic source for information about Austrian Economics" I AM NOT MISESSUS. #2 This doesn't matter anyway because you're basing what ABCT is off of an article by lewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. Just because Misessus and I are arguing that ABCT isn't what it says in that article doesn't mean we think Mises Inst. is a bad source--HAYEK made ABCT. #3 "And the paragraph Misessus cited didn't state whether the Austrian School is for or against central banking." Then there's a problem with the source, not the assertion that ABCT isn't inherently anti-central bank. #4 The Hayek quote shows us his opinion on central banking. He is NOT saying "This is what ABCT is." #5 "but notice that it says "inherently damaging and ineffective" when it refers to central bank policies." Yes, it says "The theory views business cycles as the inevitable consequence of excessive growth in bank credit, exacerbated by inherently damaging and ineffective central bank policies." This means that it is exacerbated by inherently damaging and ineffective central bank POLICIES. As in, the policies by central banks which are inherently damaging and ineffective exacerbate malinvestment/bubbles. It doesn't say "ABCT is the theory which views business cycles as the inevitable consequences of policies done by central banks (which are always inherently damaging and ineffective)." Byelf2007 (talk) 11 September 2011

DC, what exactly is it that you don't understand? The ABCT says that credit expansion is one of the major drivers of the business cycle and that business cycles have been present for several hundred years. In other words, long before the Fed was founded. To claim that ABCT fails to explain pre-FED business cycles is FACTUALLY wrong, because it has been used to explain every bubble in US history, e.g. the Panic of 1819. Thus, ACBT DOES address and explain pre-FED business cycles, so claiming that it doesn't is demonstrably wrong. How can this be so difficult to grasp, when I've even cited Rothbard's The Mystery of Banking, in which he describes the basic ABCT without a single reference to central banking.

The issue of central banks have been incorporated into the ABCT during the 20th century because of the important role central banks now play in the business cycle. However, no Austrian have ever in any way, shape or form claimed that failed central bank policies are the only source of the business cycle. And just so you know, being agaisnt central banking and theorizing about what causes the business cycle are two completely different things.

Right now I can't figure out whethere you're lying or just being incredibly obtuse. Misessus (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I never said only. Have you even been paying attention to what's going on? Are you also arguing that the Austrian School isn't against central banking, despite statements on the Mises Institute website and those of Hayek himself? That's what Byelf2007 is arguing. Here's another anti-central bank statement: "The cycle of generalized malinvestment is therefore caused solely by centralized monetary intervention in the money markets by the central bank." That's from the Mises Institute's wiki about the business cycle, by the way. This argument has gotten silly. --Dark Charles (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason the pre-Fed recessions criticism of ABCT is an actual criticism of ABCT because of what ABCT is. I also never said Austrian School isn't inherently anti-central bank (I honestly don't know if that's the case). If it is, then the current definition in the article--which is far more complicated than it used to be thanks to me by the way--is too simple ("advocates strict adherence to methodological individualism in interpreting economic developments and emphasizes the spontaneous organizing power of the price mechanism"--there's nothing there about central banks). Either way, it's irrelevant whether or not Austrian School is anti-central bank. All that matters here is that ABCT definitely is not anti-central bank. "The theory views business cycles as the inevitable consequence of excessive growth in bank credit" and "exacerbated by inherently damaging and ineffective" central bank policies" [it does not say that central banks INHERENTLY contribute to ABCT]. If you have a problem with that definition, then change it and explain why it should be changed. You keep harping on this point that "Austrian School is anti-central bank", and, yet, even if that's true, it has nothing to do with ABCT as it is currently defined on this site. And you add one more "anti-central bank statement" from Mises Institute wiki? So what? Was the edit by someone representing the institute? Does that automatically mean Austrian School (or Mises Institute, for that matter) are anti-central bank? Do you realize the Mises Institute and the Austrian School are two different things? The only way you can prove that this critique isn't misguided (and I'm for including it ABCT article even if it is) is if you prove that ABCT is inherently anti-central bank. And you're arguing that Austrian School is anti-central bank (which is irrelevant), and that what (some guy on the wiki of) Mises Institute said as evidence of what the Austrian School (not Mises Institute) thinks about central banks, even though you're not taking issue with the Austrian School definition or the relevant one--ABCT. Byelf2007 (talk) 12 September 2011

Is this a misunderstanding on your part? This is not supposed to go in the Austrian business cycle theory page; it's supposed to go in the Austrian School page.

Next time you use the Mises Institute as a source for the Austrian School page I'll have to ask you that question: "do you realize that there's a difference between the Mises Institute and the Austrian School?" This argument is just silly. Yes, I know that the Mises Institute and the Austrian School are different. I'm using the Mises Institute as a source. My source says that the Austrian School is against central banking. You can't argue that the Mises Institute is a good source and then reject it when it says something inconvenient. By the way, my last quote was from the Mises Institute's Austrian business cycle Wiki, so that was an explicit statement of the Austrian business cycle position.--Dark Charles (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Really, dude? "This is not supposed to go in the Austrian business cycle theory page; it's supposed to go in the Austrian School page." So what? I'm pointing out that Austrian School and ABCT are different things. That's all. You need to hear it because you're saying 'If AS is anti-central bank (for which you provide little evidence), then ABCT simply MUST be also regardless of it's definition!' "You can't argue that the Mises Institute is a good source and then reject it when it says something inconvenient." I'm not sure when I said Mises Institute is a good source. Anyway, I don't think ABCT is whatever Mises Institute says it is. Get it? "By the way, my last quote was from the Mises Institute's Austrian business cycle Wiki, so that was an explicit statement of the Austrian business cycle position." Again, read my last post: "Was the edit by someone representing the institute?" This is like saying "We should have the article define X as thus and so because it's on this site (which anyone can edit)." The Mises Institute does NOT have a monopoly on what is and isn't AS and ABCT. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 September 2011

I'll put this simply: I've verified, with a source that has generally been accepted as a good source for the position of the Austrian School, that Austrian Economics is against central banking. Thus, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the Austrian School is against central banking. If you don't understand that you should take a look at WP:V. What's more, if you're advocating putting information into the article the burden is on you. See WP:BURDEN (it's in WP:V). If you can't supply sources, then your work is WP:OR.--Dark Charles (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"with a source that has generally been accepted as a good source for the position of the Austrian School" That doesn't mean we should. I'm not saying "It's not a good source", I'm just curious what your arguments are for us trusting the source. Part of the problem is that there hasn't been a simple long-time universally accepted definition for AS. Byelf2007 (talk) 18 September 2011

Well, my own opinions aren't really relevant. However I will say this: the Austrian School generally advocates free markets. Neither the lender of last resort nor the setting of monetary policy part of central banking (which are the two key functions of a central bank) are consistent with that.--Dark Charles (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this Criticism section is way overblown. If it was implemented as it is, it would take up about a third of the entire article. It needs to be slashed, and heavily.

We should make a "Criticisms of ABCT" article first (all the info is important). Byelf2007 (talk) 12 September 2011

Second of all, it still says "Critics have also argued that, as the theory points to the actions of fractional-reserve banks and central banks to explain the business cycles, it fails to explain the severity of business cycles before the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913". This is, as has been demonstrated, factually wrong. The theory does not fail to explain the severity of pre-FED business cycles, not least because the theory does not presuppose the existence of central banks. Also, the idea that business cycle were more sever in the 19th century is ludicrous. Up until 1921, there were no real depressions, just very short "panic", usually over within a year or so. We now also know that the so called Long Depression of the 1870s didn't actually occur, there was no Long Depression. In fact, output increased all through the 1870s. The main reason for believing that there was a depression was the continuously falling prices, but these were a function of the increased output. Even Christina Romer admits that now.

Third of all, a theory is per definition value free. ABCT doesn't argue for or against central banks or fractional-reserve banking, it explains the causes of the business cycle. The main driver of the business cycle is the credit expansion perpetrated by fractional-reserve banks. This distortion has, as a rule, been further enhanced by bad central bank policies. However, in theory, a central bank can raise the reserve requirements of FRB-banks to 100%, in which case credit expansion would be nigh on impossible. This means that a central bank doesn't necessarily cause business cycles or make them worse, it just so happens that central banks in general and the FED in particular have done just that, made things much worse. However, the ABCT itself makes no value judgements, but it offers a basis for conclusions, and as a rule, Austrians are against both FRB and central banks because of their propensity to cause and exacerbate the business cycle, not to mention the devaluation of the currency.

Fourth of all, of course Austrians are against central banks. How did that even become an issue? You think that they would favor central banks just because business cycles can happen without them? Central banks make things much worse, its bad economics and its bad policy. There are many reasons to be against central banks, both economical and ideological. You can be against central banks even if that is not the corner stone of the ABCT, WHICH IS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE. Is any of this in any way, shape or form still unclear? I sincerely hope not. Misessus (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism article

It looks to me like the move of the criticism section from here to a new article is a pretty clear violation of WP:POVFORK. I think what we aught to do is integrate the criticism section into the rest of the article to be in accordance with WP:STRUCTURE.--Dark Charles (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've redirected the page back to here. Trying to put sourced criticism of AS into its own article is about the quickest way I know to stir up a PoV forking bashfest. At the very least, this article should be allowed to settle into some kind of consensus before splitting off content and even then, only owing to size. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism (and sundry alt PoV) sections often pop up in articles with editorial disputes, to stop the very "back and forth" noted at WP:STRUCTURE. I must say, there shouldn't be this kind of bickering here, this is an encyclopedia article, neither a hit piece nor a promotional pitch on AS. It is understood, however, that as this topic becomes ever more political, some editors will only be happy with one or the other, mistakenly saying all the while, "that's the neutral one." Gwen Gale (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Misessus complained about the criticisms section taking up too much space within the article. I don't really care one way or another, but I myself have found that there's a great deal of debate regarding the theory which isn't represented here. How long does the criticisms section have to get before it gets it's own article? Also, I'm not sure how this is a violation of WP:STRUCTURE. It says: "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, ***based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself*** [is there POV within criticisms section?], may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false" [is this the case within criticisms section?] Byelf2007 (talk) 19 September 2011

I don't see a "violation" of any article structure in DC's comment. I think its merely a statement as to where such a section ought to go when or if there is one.--S. Rich (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So we can make a "criticisms of austrian school" page? Byelf2007 (talk) 19 September 2011

No. DC was right about the POV-forking. Even if criticisms of . . . . is set forth NPOV, the very fact that anyone creates it leads to more EditWarring. Best to simply focus on the AS article in and of itself. --S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Seriously guys, it's ridiculous. I suggest deleting the entire section to put it more in line with Post Keynesian economics or Neo-Keynesian economics. I find the entire section to be in conflict with WP:POVFORK and WP:structure. In light of such blatant violations, I'm just going to go ahead and delete it. Nodrogj (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't optimal with the criticism section, but it certainly doesn't violate WP:POVFORK (it's in the same article), and WP:STRUCTURE basically says it's not optimal. It would be better if criticisms could be included cleanly in the main prose of the article, but that's obviously extremely tricky. It's better to have criticisms exist non-optimally than not at all. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Nodrogj: Your provide no arguments--only assertion. Cretog8 is quite right that there's too much criticisms content to weave it into the article. WP:STRUCTURE is guidelines, not firm rules, and when the guidelines become basically impossible to follow, we go with the lesser of two evils. If we were going to be consistent with your position, we'd have to eliminate every criticisms section (and article) on this site, no matter how long it is compared to the rest of the coverage on the topic. Byelf2007 (talk) 21 September 2011

Krugman blog as source

Srich reverted my removal here, and possibly quite rightly. I've always been confused about that one. Krugman's blog appears to be very personal, full of offhand bits that don't seem likely to be under editorial control. But I don't actually have any idea if they are. Since I'm confused about that, and similar blogs, I've asked for suggestions at the reliable sources noticeboard. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is an edit which can properly set forth Krugman's opinion (main thing is that he is stating an opinion and this clarifies as much):

Paul Krugman's opinion is that because Austrians do not use "explicit models" they are unaware of holes in their own thinking.

I'll add that we have to accept at face value that NYT exercises editorial control over these blogs. We are not looking at whether they contain truth. --S. Rich (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess there's three things to question about this particular source.

1. Is Krugman's blog a WP:RS? I'm interested in that question more generally, beyond how it applies here. I'm willing to wait and see what happens at WP:RSN to better form my feelings about that.
2. Is it a good source> Krugman's prominence could possibly make it so, but it still seems very offhand, a couple paragraphs of semi-thinking, so I wouldn't think of it as a good source to use in this article.
3. Does this particular blog say what the WP article says it says? (see this reversion). Krugman clearly says at the bottom of that blog post "the Austrian abhorrence of explicit models, even for the purposes of clarifying thought, leaves them unaware of the holes in their account" which closely fits this article's phrasing of, "Paul Krugman has noted that the Austrians failure to use models has left them unaware of holes in their own thinking". (I probably wouldn't use "noted" in that sentence.) CRETOG8(t/c) 20:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"the Austrian abhorrence of EXPLICIT models" is not the same as "Austrians failure to use models". AS use models--like supply and demand. What they don't like is using models that cover several variables that claim "there's this precise mathematical equation that explains precisely what's going on". Byelf2007 (talk) 21 September 2011

Response: 1) I'm not sure if WP:NEWSBLOG applies since I don't think the NYT fact checks their opinion section. However, in WP:Self-published sources it says "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." So even if the blog weren't on the NYT website it would still be OK. 2) Krugman is a well known economist. His comments seem notable enough to me. 3) Adding the word "explicit" in front of "models" seems like a reasonable fix. The removal of the word "noted" is fine as well.--Dark Charles (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we have to assume that the NYT exercises editorial control over its' blog. To what extent they fact check such material is not an issue for, or in, this particular WP:POLICY. As it is not addressed, we need not second-guess the fact checking conducted by the NYT in the opinion pieces they publish. (After all, they are the RS publisher.) Once we clarify that Krugman (or others for that matter) is giving his opinion we are on firm editing grounds.--S. Rich (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I second that. But I always thought fact checking was necessary for something to be under a newspaper's "full editorial control". Not sure. It's moot because the source would be OK even if it were self-published due to the reasons I gave above. But just FYI, according to Brmull, the NYT's blogs are fact checked (source). I heard that they weren't, but I don't remember from where. I once emailed someone at the newspaper about it, but I never got a response.--Dark Charles (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the most appropriate wiki policy regarding Krugman's NYT opinion blog is Statements of opinion. "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." So the question here is not whether Krugman's blog material is reliably sourced, but whether his statements of opinion are used in the appropriate context in the AS article among statements of fact. Another wiki policy can offer us guidance here, Academic consensus. The policy says "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." To the extent that Krugman is a representative for another academic school of thought makes this policy appropriate for examining this phrase "Austrian... unaware of the holes in their account." We have consensus that the AS does not like the use of "explicit models" in the tradition of the Krugman school. (check) The insinuation of "holes" in the ABCT as a statement from the mainstream view is a stronger claim that requires a higher standard for reliable sources that claims (as per WP:RS/AC) "that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view" of the AS being unaware of the holes in their account of ABCT due to their abhorrence of explicit models. Going to the statement made in the AS article "Paul Krugman has noted that the Austrians failure to use models has left them unaware of holes in their own thinking" would make it seem to a casual reader of the article that Krugman simply is parroting the consensus of the academic community instead of simply making an opinion that may or may not share consensus. Additionally, as User:Byelf2007 observes above, "the Austrian abhorrence of EXPLICIT models" is not the same as "Austrians failure to use models". I would add emphasis to the words abhorrence and failure though, as the statement "I abhor going back to work on Monday" is not the same as "I failed to go back to work on Monday." However, as Robert P. Murphy notes in a response to Krugman he can show the Austrian perspective in a formal (explicit) model. Additionally, the phrase "Krugman has noted" is problematic according to wiki MOS policy Synonyms for said because as we established regarding Krugman's statements in his blog as opinions and not necessarily facts, "To write that someone noted... can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable." So to the extent the citation of Krugman using his NYT opinion blog is needed at all in an article about the AS, his material should be quoted WP:RSOPINION and the neutral forms for said used WP:SAY. I found it interesting that the AS has issued an outstanding challenge to Krugman to debate and clarify the claims of the Austrians and the Keynesians. So if there are any general claims Krugman has of the AS, in the light of this academic challenge, the statement in the article should take care to differentiate between facts and opinion. K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 11:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that we're converging to the consensus that the blog can be used as a reliable source of Krugman's opinion, and I'm OK with that part, although I disagree with various parts of different folks' reasoning. If we grant that it's OK to use this blog, I still don't think it's a good idea to use this particular blog entry. Krugman blogs a lot, with many of his statements seeming off-the-cuff. He has talked about the Austrian school from time to time in more depth, and I think it's fine to use one of his full-length articles on that. Using a short snippet from his blog seems very WP:UNDUE to me, even if we accept WP:RS. CRETOG8(t/c) 14:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

I just had reason to look up austrian school of economics. The introdcution is awful. It is utterly incomprehensible unless you understand the subject. No, incomprehensible unless you understand the vocabulary it uses. Someone like me - or a lot less clued up than me - should be able to look at the first paragraph of the article and be able to understand the basic idea. Which seems to be that it is a ragbag of different ideas but basically let the market get on with it because no one understands it anyway. Did I translate that right?Sandpiper (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the vocabulary is no more incomprehensible than other esoteric topics you may find on wikipedia. I think the article is sufficiently concise in its prose although that should not stop a capable editor to further refine the introduction to make it better. It would be a mistake to take out certain words that are already linked to other wiki articles for the sake of simplification. Clarity is welcomed however. The best place to perhaps condense the material down would be to create a definition of Austrian School of Economics in wikt:Austrian similar to the style used for wikt:Keynesian. The Austrian School summary has a more abbreviated version in the "Schools of economic thought" article. Maybe it would be helpful to future wiki users and link to this summary in the main article? Maybe someone can take a crack at it. K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 04:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe user:Sandpiper would like a definition-style like what is found here at the businessdictionary.com. Again, I think what we have as an introduction for Austrian School is adequate for wikipedia. K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 04:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean, it is pretty awful but that is good enough? yes, I do prefer the linked description of austrian school. This is not an encycopedia for people who are financial experts but for everybody who hears mention of 'Austrian school' in the news and wonders what the hell it is. It should at least be possible to understand the words used in the introduction without stopping to look up and read articles on every other one. I generally reckon the first sentence should define the subject. The first paragraph should be an explanation you could give to any stranger you spoke to in the street, the whole introduction should cover the major points of the article. The intro needs to abbreviate by being simplistic, not by packing in difficult concepts at an extraordinary density. It is not acceptable to introduce concepts just linking them without explaining them as you go. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section where it says (amongst other things),

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for the topic being noteworthy should be established early on in the lead. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article.

In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction. Mathematical equations and formulas should not be used except in mathematics articles. Templates, other than Infoboxes, should be avoided, as they are not displayed in tooltip previews and make the article summary unintelligible. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it.Sandpiper (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Citations

Not NPOV

I sense an undercurrent of pejorative negativity in this article, starting with the immediate characterization of the AS as "heterodox". For perspective I refer to the WP article on Judaism - it states factually that only two-tenths of one percent of the world's population practices the faith without resorting to a dismissive term like "heterodox". How would an edit characterizing Judaism as a "minor" or "insignificantly practiced" religion be received? The AS article contains twenty-two (!) mentions of the word "mainstream" (exclusive of the References section). Again the intent seems to be to diminish AS rather than to compare and contrast it to this or that specific school. I note parenthetically that the word "mainstream" itself connotes a flowing body of water, whose course may from time to time change. Finally, the Business Cycles section under Theories, specifically the two paragraphs commencing with "In contrast to most mainstream (there's that word again) theories on business cycles...", places so many terms in quotes ("artificial", "bubble", "recession", "bust", "clear") as to come across as a mockery of the subject rather than a discussion thereof. The tone seems similar to the one a policeman would take when asking "So lady, where exactly did you see the 'little green men'?" Suggestions therefore are (a) remove "heterodox"; (b) change instances of "mainstream" to reflect the actual school being compared/contrasted; (c) rewrite of Business Cycles. Musicmax (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Blaug and macro

This material discussing criticisms by Blaug has been removed. First, I point out that it is adequately sourced, and so I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. I read the argument against including it as being that the criticism is somehow incomplete without explaining why macroeconomics is important or exactly how it conflicts with methodological individualism. If all of that information can be compressed into a comprehensible bit to add to the article, I agree it would be superior. However, what's quite clear to me is that Blaug sees them in conflict and sees that as a genuine problem. I'm sure many economists would agree, but this is only citing Blaug and probably is doing so truthfully, so... I don't see what's wrong with it. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As I already said, the point of the criticisms section is to explain criticisms and there is no explanation there of why macroeconomics is important (which is essential to his criticism), nor is there an explanation of how methodological individualism negates macroeconomics. This has to be explained. Otherwise, it would like including something that says "Some guy thinks AS methodology is bad because it's not detailed enough" (without saying how) or "Some guy thinks ABCT is wrong because it doesn't explain why chocolate tastes good to some people" (without saying why that's relevant). The burden is on people who want to include stuff to have it make sense and be relevant to the article and section it's in. The burden is NOT on me to make it make sense since I don't particularly care if it's included. You're essentially saying "Hey, man, this is just this guy's opinion. Maybe it should be more detailed, but what's wrong with including his opinion?" My point is that we literally don't know what his opinion is beyond mere assertions. That's not good enough to be included in a criticisms section. If anyone cares about this guy's criticisms, they should explain it well enough that someone can understand it. Otherwise, it has no place here. Byelf2007 (talk) 30 September 2011

While I don't understand it in a deep enough way that I'd feel comfortable running a seminar on it, I do understand it based simply on what's there. I expect many others will as well. If an art history expert of note said something like, "an insistence on realism would mean discarding a great deal of 20th century art," that would similarly make sense without needing to explain why 20th century art is worth keeping around or why an insistence on realism would conflict with that.CRETOG8(t/c) 01:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You understand "what's there", yes, obviously. What we don't understand is the reasoning of the criticism. We are not told why macroeconomics is true or how methodological individualism violates this. It's like saying "If you are an atheist, you don't believe the Bible is the word of God, therefore, you are immoral." But why does not believing the Bible is the word of God make you immoral? We need to know that to *understand* the argument. "an insistence on realism would mean discarding a great deal of 20th century art" You mean "only realist paintings are good"? Okay, so why are they? That has to be there for us to understand the objection. "that would similarly make sense without needing to explain why 20th century art is worth keeping around or why an insistence on realism would conflict with that." It would only make sense insofar as we know what the person's opinion is, but we wouldn't understand it. There's no point in saying "Some guy objects to this theory because it discards X" if we aren't told why that's bad. Byelf2007 (talk) 30 September 2011

Blaug is one of the foremost scholars in the field of economic thought. It is highly notable if he states that a problem exists. The quote clearly shows that he observes that a problem exists. Please don't use WP:OR to argue that that a notable person's criticism is misguided, or is somehow not a criticism. LK (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you bother to read what I have to say? I'm not saying his objection isn't notable--I'm saying we aren't told what it is. If you care about including this, then make it work. Byelf2007 (talk) 6 October 2011

It's clear to me what it is. Please don't use OR to argue that it's unclear. LK (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not using OR--I'm deleting content. And, again, we are not told why this guy thinks AS is anti-macroeconomics *OR* why macroeconomics is good. In short, we aren't told what his opinion is. Byelf2007 (talk) 6 October 2011

You're essentially saying that either my description of Blaug's complaint, or Blaug's own description of his complaint (since I quote him) about methodological individualism is so badly written as to be not understandable. I, myself, find the meaning pretty clear. If you cannot understand such a paragraph, I doubt that you should be editing encyclopedia articles. As to why it is a problem to throw away the entire corpus of Macroeconomics, we do not have to discuss that issue. It is enough to note that Blaug believes it is a problem, since Blaug is a notable voice about Economic philosophy. LK (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"I, myself, find the meaning pretty clear." The meaning of the statement "I think AS is anti-macro and macro is good" is clear. What is NOT clear to us is either why macro is good, or (this is way more important) why AS is anti-macro. I'm willing, as a compromise, to allow criticism of AS being anti-macro without an explanation of why macro is good. Because we aren't told why AS is anti-macro, we are not told enough of his opinion to understand it. Is he saying he believes this because he had a dream about it? Or is there actually an argument in there somewhere? I'll also add that the quote contains two instances of "..." What is left out is probably what I need for this to be included--it's probably THE ARGUMENT. I need to know what it is. I'm not okay with including raw assertions in a criticisms sections of an article, such as "Mr. X thinks opinion Z is incorrect" without a "because [argument]". You have repeatedly not responded to my argument. Either it's OK to include assertions without any argumentation whatsoever in a criticisms section (where's the WP:rule ?), or you need to include his argument (assuming he has one). Finally, I'll add that the burden for inclusion is on the person who wants to include something, so please stop including this in this and other articles (such as methodological individualism) until you've mad a case that addresses my argument. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 October 2011

WP:BURDEN is about verifiability, and this material is referenced and so verifiable. LK (and I) have satisfied the burden for including this, unless you have some other notion of burden in mind. The discussion here is (or should be) about whether including the Blaug thing is a good idea. The part I see in the quote which seems to me to answer your question is "In effect, it would rule out all macroeconomic propositions that cannot be reduced to microeconomic ones". So... I don't see what you see is missing. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about verifiability, I was talking about relevancy/clarity. Anyway, we know that he says "it would rule out all macroeconomic propositions that cannot be reduced to microeconomic ones" but we are NOT told WHY he thinks this. It's just an assertion. We need an argument. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 October 2011

Caplan/Klein "criticisms"

From the article as it presently is: "Caplan also argues that Austrian economists have often misunderstood modern economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it. For example, many Austrian economists object to the use of cardinal utility in microeconomic theory; however, microeconomic theorists go to great pains to show that their results hold for all strictly monotonic transformations of utility, and so are true for purely ordinal preferences. The result is that conclusions about utility preferences hold no matter what values are assigned to them."

This is not a criticism of AS theory: it's a criticism of how SOME (not all) AS economists misunderstand some other economists' work on microeconomics. Is there a part of AS theory that says "We must always object to the use of cardinal utility in microeconomics, even when it's literally impossible for it's use to not make sense" and/or "We must always assume that when people apply X to Y, that they're also applying X to Z, even when they go to great pains to tell us they're not applying X to Z"? Nope. Do AS economists often screw this/similar up? Perhaps. It this necessarily a part of AS? I don't see how this is the case.

From the article as it presently is: "Another criticism of the school from Benjamin Klein is that although Austrian School economist Israel M. Kirzner highlights shortcomings in traditional methodology, Kirzner does not provide viable alternatives for making positive contributions to economic theory."

This is a criticism of Kirzner (one guy), not AS economists in general. And even if it were a criticism of AS economists in general, that still doesn't make it a criticism of AS (as in AS theory).

I think we'd better get rid of both of these. It's like criticizing the paradox of thrift concept because Keynes made a mistake in the General Theory. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 October 2011

It's a valid criticism. Not only was this misunderstanding prominently promoted by Austrian School leaders, you still hear some austrian sympathizers repeat the same misunderstanding today. BigK HeX (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not addressing my arguments--this is a criticism of what some AS economists have said, not AS theory. There is NO source (or is there? where is it?) that says AS advocates what a few AS economists, in this case, have said. This is an article on "AS", not "AS economists".Byelf2007 (talk) 9 October 2011

Your argument here is nonsensical at best. The Austrian School's leading theorists are obviously part of the Austrian School. For you to claim them to be unrelated isn't even worth this much of a response.

Stop edit warring. BigK HeX (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)