Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carolmooredc (talk | contribs) at 17:05, 21 June 2013 (→"Removing unsourced content": response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Austrian school of economics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Libertarianism Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Leonard, Andrew (19 February 2013). "How Paul Krugman broke a Misplaced Pages page on economics". Salon Magazine.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Krugman, Paul (20 February 2013). "Fine Austrian Whines". The New York Times. Austrian economics very much has the psychology of a cult. Its devotees believe that they have access to a truth that generations of mainstream economists have somehow failed to discern; they go wild at any suggestion that maybe they're the ones who have an intellectual blind spot.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Austrian school of economics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Untitled

Please put new text at the end of this page, not on top or in older edits!

Two groups of Austrians

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

The other strain of Austrianism, associated with Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, is explicitly fringe. They basically reject all of mainstream economics based on a belief that human action in principle cannot be captured by empirical (scientific) observation. The metaphysical underpinning for this is an unscientific conception of humanity akin to substance dualism (and indeed, these sorts of Austrians often call themselves "epistemological dualists.") These folks -- almost all of whom are radical libertarians or anarchists -- like to wrap themselves in the veneer of Hayek (to get his mainstream support), but also deride him as a "social democrat" for (based on sound empirical reasons) supporting generous funding for education, infrastructure, public health, and so forth. (for example, see this article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe: http://mises.org/daily/5747/Why-Mises-and-not-Hayek)

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

I agree that this article should explicitly discuss the differences among Austrians today. For that reason, don't think the recent additions of material on Block and Rockwell, particularly in the lede, are a good idea unless and until the distinctions among Austrians are established in the text. Also, Rockwell is not an economist and I don't believe his opinion is worth including in the article, except as it may arise in a narrative about the Mises' Institute's claim to be the hub of Austrian Economics. The Bohm-Bawerk addition, I think, is clearer than before. SPECIFICO talk 01:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you have a point. My editions are informative about one strain of Austrianism (that associated with the (in my view, hucksterish) scholars at the Mises Institute) but not the other one. While Block (and Buchanan/Becker) appear to be talking about Austrianism generally in that piece, the reading I've done on this matter would imply that they are talking about one subset of the school. (i.e. that associated with LvMI, Rockwell, Gary North, and Ron Paul for President) I think deleting the Block additions for now while planning to include them at a later point is the appropriate the ideal response. And thank you for the comment re my Bohm-Bawerk changes! Steeletrap (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Citation for named individuals?

I see User:Specifico reverted at this diff the listing of who was allegedly affiliated with what grouping. Please be aware of WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle since not discussing and just reverting a revert is considered WP:Edit warring.

Anyway, the material on individuals is still unsourced. Even if their Wiki articles explicitly note these affiliations, which most probably do not, if a ref is requested, you must provide it. Thus citation needed tag. (And it is a BLP issue since some might not like being put in an either/or camp.) Also the colleges are irrelevant unless WP:RS explains relevance or perhaps if specific individuals are linked to them. Thus dubious tag, though WP:SYNTH also might be relevant. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The more the Murrayer?

As the article stands, it seems no section cannot end without a sentence or paragraph of "what would Rothbard say?" This places undue weight on his views and gives them undue emphasis relative to the other Austrian views and scholars on these subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 16:18, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Krugman: WP:OR on inflation rate? Better summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Open a new RfC if you wish, but until you understand both the history of the discussion here and the chart and the substance of the text, do not remove the consensus text. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

So you won't even explain why you left the citation needed? I'll have to assume you agree with me. If you do not, a one sentence answer is the collaborative way to go. Or I can read all of the discussions and quote every relevant one and see if they make any sense whatsoever. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Past discussions of the diff

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

• Two December discussions were about accuracy of Krugman's analysis (1, 2), followed by a Dec 2012 RfC whose close read: Consensus is to Include Krugman's inflation critique, cited with reliable sources (ie, not a blog); however, the criticism should not be written in the encyclopedic voice, but should specifically attribute the perspective, eg "One criticism of the Austrian theory, by Paul Krugman, is that blah blah blah"... (Note, I do agree with close.)
• Jan 2013, Current diff first mentioned at talk with no discussion of it.
• Talk:Austrian_School/Archive_10#A_Krugman-inflation_issue: only explicit policy-related discussion quoted below in bold (regarding this source):

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

There's currently consensus for the version that is in the article. Unless there develops an objectively demonstrated consensus to replace it with another version, the answer to your question is no. If you review the talk thread you'll see that the 350/3 bit was discussed. The numbers come from the clearly labeled graph which appears in the cited source. I don't find it constructive or relevant for you to suggest that anyone has made Krugman look like a total moron. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the graph has the data, and yes, the graph is discussed on the page, but where on the page does Krugman 'point out' that the 'MB has increased by 350%' while 'inflation has only increased by 3%'. I don't see that anywhere. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 February 2013

As always, if you disagree with the consensus, including the numbers, you are free to seek a specific alternative consensus. You've already stated various and sundry reasons why you don't like the consensus, but your only recourse is to demonstrate a specific new consensus of the editors here. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You are implying the existence of a non-existent consensus. Time to start talking about the merits of the issues at hand. North8000 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• March 10, Editor puts that material in.

Problems

• Maybe Byelf2007 and SPECIFICO can figure out that the graph says what SPECIFICO says it says - but I bet a WP:RSN would not find a non-economist/mathematician who could figure out why. Misplaced Pages is not just for PhDs.
• Byelf2007 is correct that Krugman does not make that point. It seems it is WP:OR since WP:RS not clear. And we don't know who - NY Times or Krugman - decided to put in that graph.
• Even if there was a consensus to use that material, which I did not find, consensus can't over ride WP:NPOV or WP:RS or making the encyclopedia comprehensible to your average high school graduate (which is a high standard in the US).
• There was very general discussion of whether Krugman's quote interpreted Austrian economics properly, but I found no discussion of whether the quote reflected Misplaced Pages quoting policy, which I doubt since it is draw from two different paragraphs. This seems to be an intersection of WP:OR and WP:RS, so I'd be inclined to check it out at WP:RSN. Well, I'll give it a couple days and see if anyone else chimes in. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If the problem is with exact numbers, I see no problems with stating that money base has increased several-fold, with concomitant very low inflation rates. The graph makes this clear. Alternatively/also, we can stick the graph Krugman used into the article, since FRED is a federal institution and so all works are public domain. LK (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Krugman's argument is a clever ruse. Austrians think money creation the process by which the money supply is increased, causes inflation, Krugman is referring to the Monetary base, which is an insignificant amount comparatively. It is like saying rainfall has increased 350%, yet the river is up only 3%. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's avoid whether he's right cause that's been discussed ad nauseum. (I won't share my "they are both part right" viewpoint.) The only issues are: a) did he put that graph in - does he mention it? Rereading again, don't see that. Just like editors often insert titles and we avoid using them as "refs" in news/magazine articles, editors insert graphics; b) nevertheless, I don't necessarily have a problem with inserting it if it says "accompanying graph says" - but also the graph has to be comprehensible. How does less than 80 on the left axis translate into 3 percent? I'm sure that's a mystery to lots of people. Does one have to take an advanced statistics course to figure it out? Can't a more scholarly discussion of problems with the theory be found. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 11:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, and it is impossible to determine, whether Krugman put the graph in. The graph accompanies his article in its published form, period. There is no reason to, and no ability to attempt to distinguish what the newspaper editorial inserted versus what the author "actually wrote". The published work is what is being cited and the published work contains the graph, whether it says explicitly says "see the graph" or not. This argument has exactly zero merit. — goethean 14:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The graph, clearly attributed, is also clearly labeled and is known by the NY Times to be intelligible to its readers. If for whatever reason a WP editor does not function at that same level of numeracy, their personal difficulties with the graph do not constitute an argument against inclusion of the graph or its data in the article. SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC?

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

We don't have a shortage of solutions. We have lack of a problem. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that saying that is to be expected from the folks on the side of the debate that prefers it as-is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

North, old friend. You know that ad hominems are not permitted here. Why don't you state the problem which you believe requires an RfC. Problem with the article, not the editors. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You are mis-defining my comment as ad hominem / claiming problem with the editor. It's only human & normal (not all that nasty stuff) for the person who prefers the status quo to say that there is no problem. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Argumentum ad hominem does entail malicious intent

You mean does not entail malicious intent. — goethean 20:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

And this chart is not in this article, it is in an article which this article refers too, correct? If so, then this is a really bizarre objection. Now we have to dumb down the sources? We have Misplaced Pages articles which refer to peer-reviewed academic journals. Undoubtedly there are plenty of Misplaced Pages readers who cannot comprehend such sources. There is no requirement that sources be dumbed-down to any level. I've heard a lot of crazy arguments, but this one takes the cake. — goethean 20:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This one takes the sachertorte. SPECIFICO talk 20:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Goethean: if the sources themselves are problematic, like maybe some NY Times intern mish mash of Fed Reserve graphics, do you really want to be defending them? see below. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽

WP:RSN discussion

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

Check out another users comments on why using that NY Times-created(?) graphic not appropriate. (OR do I have to quote it here? Mocking attempts to get info on WP:RS really is problematic behavior.)

Why not use Dec 2011 statistics from first Krugman article and 2012 comment from second? Why go against policy by using WP:OR/synth?? It's not like it's making your case that much stronger, just one more evidence of refusal to follow basic policy... CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Since this is a somewhat technical subject, in addition to one editor quoted below, I've posted to two wikiprojects that deal with statistics/economics to look at WP:RSN notice. Now how do you all debate this? Let's not forget Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If you don't respond with a rational response that doesnt make jokes about pastry, I have to assume you agree with me :-)

That graph as published in the NYT really shouldn't be used as a Misplaced Pages source for making a statement that is precise down to 3% because the markers on the Y axis are not that precise, and Krugman doesn't explicitly say anything about 3% in the accompanying text. As I understand it, the Y axis starts at 80 instead of 0 because it's an index, with the baseline set at 100 (which falls conveniently between 80 and 120). I assume it's done that way because there are two disparate kinds of data being plotted on the same graph, so the data needed to be normalized to appear together. A reader can eyeball the graph and get a ballpark idea of changes that occurred (eg, the "monetary base tripled"), but being more precise than that would be inappropriate. Dezastru (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

So what is the error?

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

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

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

Synth is correct tag for this?

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

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

Austrian tenets list WP:OR

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

• Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society, Volume 1, edited by Robert W. Kolb, 2008, lists five.
• Karen I. Vaughn (28 January 1998). Austrian Economics in America: The Migration of a Tradition. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-63765-7. Retrieved 15 June 2013. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) has a lot of material on "tenets" and paradigm and ideas, starting with intro.
• Ronald Hamowy; Cato Institute (15 August 2008). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. SAGE Publications. pp. 171–. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. Retrieved 15 June 2013.</ref> has a whole section (Check if Kolb drew from Hamowy.) Note that Hamowy worked closely with Cato on this, even though he also associated closely with Mises Institute. One example of many.

Just for starters. So it's good to make sure the current list is related to the good sources like those above, in some way so it's not just editor WP:OR. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Restructuring - 2 issues

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

Theory or history first

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

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

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

Therefore the proper structure would be:

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

Criticism inside theory sections or separately?

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

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

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

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

Despite differences among them, their views are seen as supporting free markets and private enterprise.

1. Krugman, Paul (Dec. 15. 2011). "G.O.P. Monetary Madness". NY Times. Retrieved 11 June 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
2. Paul Krugman, Varieties of Error, 2012.
3. Raico, Ralph (2011). "Austrian Economics and Classical Liberalism". mises.org. Mises Institute. Retrieved 27 July 2011. despite the particular policy views of its founders ..., Austrianism was perceived as the economics of the free market
4. Karen I. Vaughn (28 January 1998). Austrian Economics in America: The Migration of a Tradition. Cambridge University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-521-63765-7. Retrieved 15 June 2013.
5. Robert W. Kolb, Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society, Volume 1, SAGE, 2008, p 127, ISBN 1412916526

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

I'll present more high quality sources illustrating its a central position that belongs in the lead - and in a relevant section. (While I'm researching sources that actually discuss what the tenets are per Talk:Austrian_School#Austrian_tenets_list_WP:OR above.) Given that it is the most free market school, not mentioning that in the lead seems fairly absurd. Even the Chicago School of Economics article manages to mention it a few times. Perhaps User:SPECIFICO could explain?? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Claim

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

Your off-the-cuff put down of Rothbard is inapposite for the following reasons: (1) people die, buildings don't, so your comparison is not just wrong, it isn't even funny (2) the examples you use are incorrect. The Empire State Building was a private enterprise during a time of relative monetary stability (compared to today). Better examples of "malinvestment" would be housing caused by Freddie and Fannie and the government-supported bond market from 2007-2013 (which is collapsing before our eyes now). To use the example of the Empire State Building as a "prime" example shows you don't quite understand the concept. It is investment induced through distorting and extreme credit creation encouraged by mispricing of interest rates by central planners/bankers. So housing prior to 2007 and bond prices today would be much better examples. Hope this has been educative... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.135.50 (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Au contraire, NSW, according to Murray the easy credit of the 20's led to rampant malinvestment and caused the dust bowl, etc. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You must have skim read MR's America's Great Depression. Yes, that is accurate but misleading. There is malinvesment everywhere during periods of credit growth but the examples you use are tiny and trivial compared to the vast "bulk" of malinvestments, so it may give people the impression that the Empire State Building is a symbol of malinvestment when it wasn't. The 1920s stockmarket generally certainly was. MR identifies capital goods industries (steel etc) as subject to the most "intense" malinvestment in the 1920s. And given the credit growth figures post-August 1971 have far exceeded the 1920s, any Austrian with an IQ above single digits would conclude that recent "malinvestment" must - must - be magnitudes higher than the 1920s. See for example this piece from R. Landis, who does a nice job applying MR's "old" analysis to modern times (where the massive scale of worldwide malinvestment is much more pronounced). To quote him:

"No, the die is cast: we shall have the catastrophe. Our fiat monetary system got a reprieve in the 1980's, not a deliverance. All that has happened since, with the fantastic mispricing of credit the Greenspan Fed has engineered, and the massive global malinvestment this has engendered, is that the dimensions of the unraveling have become more dire."

Why focus on a tiny blip in history (Empire State Building, built by private business) when we're currently living in the biggest cycle of worldwide malinvestment in world history? At least according to Austrian Landis. Question: is this a "reliable" reference? Or does it only become reliable once the government bond market collapses worldwide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.135.50 (talk • contribs) ≈18:55 (PDT), June 19, 2013 (UTC)

FYI, whether or not you are correct (besides the disrespecting Rothbard part, which obviously you are), in wikipedia to prove a point we have to a) have a source that refers to "Austrian School/economics" and b) be non-self-published, except in some cases where it's a noted expert, usually academic and c) follow a bunch of other policies too. It can take a while to learn them and even then you sometimes have to spend far too much time talking about edits than doing research and editing. It's a commitment to learning the process to have a positive effect. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's just a soapbox. Rothbard predeceased the dotcom era or else he would have chimed in on whether Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon and all the plasma TVs, not to mention all the hydro-fracked gas fields, will need to be liquidated -- them being just all the malinvestments of the post-gold standard easy money daze of fiat credit addiction. Maybe this thread should be hatted, OT. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's a soapbox. You're the one standing on it, pontificating about what a ghost would say about the current state of the economy. Perhaps you'll get off it shortly once the bond market collapses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.174.135.50 (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"Removing unsourced content"

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

Just so we can understand and comment, I hope you won't mind if I include full relevant changes:

• Specifico changed language here to: Many economists are critical of the current-day Austrian School and consider its rejection of econometrics, experimental economics and aggregate macroeconomic analysis to be outside of mainstream economic theory, or "heterodox." (with ref: Peter Boetke http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2008/05/is-austrian-eco.htm)
• is first of 2 Id4abel edits, most importantly to: The Austrian School currently argues that many uses of econometrics and macroeconomic analysis are over aggregated and so do not support what many econometric and macroeconomic authors claim that they support; placing some Austrian theory outside of mainstream economic theory, or "heterodox economics." (with same ref)
• which Specifico changed back, to: The Austrian School currently argues that many uses of econometrics and macroeconomic analysis are over aggregated and so do not support what many econometric and macroeconomic authors claim that they support; placing some Austrian theory outside of mainstream economic theory, or "heterodox economics." (with same ref)

1. So there's the issue of Specifico ignoring BRD in a non-BLP related article.
2. Also his saying something is unsourced where there are four sources used, so who knows which says what and what's unsourced. (Except the long quote from Bryan Caplan's self-published paper on his website which I think is over-used in this article.) That's what he should have explained in discuss.
3. So the issues should be, a) is this a place in the lead for noting what the criticism is and b) what sources actually are relevant and should be used and how? CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 05:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

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

I do think a paragraph on criticism is in order. But it should make clear what sources are saying what. I'm way behind on several other edits on this article, not to mention related BLPs, not to mention the six or seven unfinished re-writes to sections and even articles on completely different topics, so feel free to take a wack at it. And even preview it here and then when a few of us agree (and who knows, Specifico even may respond) then it safely can be put up, hopefully without a revert whose merits can be evaluated at that time. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Economics articles
• High-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press