Talk:Austrian business cycle theory/Archives/2011/April

Edit request from 82.66.241.221, 26 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} This article is very poorly written. Particularly the introduction . the last sentence of the first paragraph contains a critiscism based on a priori reasoning. critisicms should be reserved for the "criticisms section" the first paragraph should be reserved for presenting the topic. there is a paragraph about the financial crisis and some comment about peter schiff be unable to profit from the housing bubble. his firm has advocated purchasing precious mettles and foreign stocks all of which have outperformed us equities. so that is factually incorrect. further the only prediction he made that was incorrect was the weakening of the us dollar which is a prediction very much still in place and irrelevant whether it immediately followed a housing crash or not. overall a very bias article

• I agree with the above author's general premise. The introduction appears to be written by someone with a very crude understanding of economics, as the theory behind the austrian business cycle is that inflated money causes a misallocation of capital which inevitably corrects itself, and that policies which cause inflation only cause the correction to be more severe when the market does inevitably correct itself.

The expansion of credit is not the cause for the expansion of money supply; in fact, the inverse is true as creditors attempt to get ahead of the curve of inflation to preserve their capital. However, the expansion of credit does not mean there is an actual expansion of capital. In short, it's the inflation which causes the misallocated funds (credit expansion) that drives the eventual bust cycle.

82.66.241.221 (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

1. The introduction is meant to cover all of the sections.
2. No ... generally we do not have to stuff criticisms away in a "criticism section," per WP:STRUCTURE.
3. The inability of Schiff's firm to generally profit is sourced. Feel free to go to the sources and "correct" them about their facts.

1. What does Schiff's inability (or ability) to profit have to do with the accuracy of his predictions? Why is one economist's incompetence or competence seemingly relied upon for this criticism? I find the whole section invalid.

1. Your suggestions to remove criticisms from the narrative certainly doesn't help bias issues. BigK HeX (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: No consensus to make the change. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

1. It is sourced, Schiffs account performance is cited and verified by the NASD/FINRA. Indications are that his fund has increased 25%. There is no reason this shoudl be included as an intellectual reference. http://www.europac.net/docs/SMA_Market_Oriented_Style_3.31.2011.pdf

The fund in question has is up 430+% off its lows in 2008, which is based on 70% gold and silver miners. This is being taken off as it's simply not true.--66.189.98.111 (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)