Talk:Austrian school of economics/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Synthesis in the criticisms section

Suppose that we are writing an article on Christian beliefs on homosexuality. And in the criticisms section, a sociologist's criticisms are described. It would be clearly OR and synthesis to rebutt those criticisms with quotes from Christian scholars about how the acceptance of homosexuality is destroying the foundation of the family – unless those Christian scholars were directly responding to the sociologist, and is thus part of the conversation. Similarly, it is synthesis to follow criticisms in this article with essentially OR rebuttals, based on writings of Austrians who are not directly responding to the person making the critique. Please don't conduct original research by digging for rebuttal arguments yourself. Only cite rebuttals if they are made in direct response to a particular critique, are notable, and are from a reliable source. LK (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

On the latest (roughly) "you can't put AS argument after Keynesian argument" edits

Is this a reliable source?

http://mises.org/daily/3155

I can't think of any reason why it isn't. One editor appears to think so. I'd like to hear his/her and any others' case on the matter. I'll delete this section soon if there are no arguments given against the reliability of this source.

From WP:PARITY: "if an article is written about a well-known topic, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review." The Lugvig von Mises Institute's publication lacks peer review?

The Mises website is not a rs for the article. TFD (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

WHY? Byelf2007 (talk) 14 November 2011

Does having a Robert Murphy opinion follow a Paul Krugman opinion violate NPOV?

I can't think of any reason why it does. One editor appears to think it does. I'd like to hear his/her and any others' case on the matter. I'll delete this section soon if there are no arguments given for the affirmative of this question.

From WP:UNDUE: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."

Just because it says "Don't give the same weight of moon-hoaxism to the conventional story" doesn't mean it also means "don't have arguments by non-economics nobel prize winners follow those by economics nobel prize winners."

Is Robert Murphy not notable?

I can't think of any reason why he isn't. One editor appears to think so. I'll delete this section soon if there are no arguments given for the affirmative of this question.

In order to say someone isn't notable, you must provide a standard for notability. If you're going with wikipedia's then you must apply it to the issue in question.

Is AS theory on par with holocaust denialism?

And just in case,

Is WP:YESPOV's example of the relative popularities of holocaust-denialism and the conventional assessment of what happened really in class with the relative popularities of ABCT and refutation of ABCT? I don't think so.

From WP:PARITY: "There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." Byelf2007 (talk) 14 November 2011

ABCT is not taken seriously, and in fact is not a part of the important debates in current academic scholarship, and this article shouldn't mislead readers to the shape of that debate. This is exactly the situation that WP:YESPOV is addressing. We have a Nobel laureate expressing the views of almost all the economics profession about ABCT, and it is treated a just one viewpoint, and the article gives equal weight to the views of an 'adjunct scholar' of Mises Institute (a non-educational institute dedicated to the promotion of Austrian views). This gives "apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view" which is against the WP:NPOV policy. LK (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've already responded to all of these arguments. This is the article ABOUT the Austrian School, and, therefore, we need to include AS responses to criticisms. Again, from WP:UNDUE: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."

Furthermore, you are correct that we should have parity for a "TINY MINORITY VIEW" and the examples that are given from YESPOV and NPOV 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." and "Holocaust denial, or claims the Apollo moon landing was faked." You have to argue that ABCT is ON PAR with these views. Clearly, they are not. ABCT gets debated in the academic world. Does it happen often? No, but Krugman writes criticisms of ABCT or similar views every few months, as do many other popular mainstream economists. The same cannot be said for the examples wikipedia gives.

I have already explained this multiple times. You need to actually read the things I've written and respond to those arguments instead of repeating the same assertions I've already responded to. Byelf2007 (talk) 14 November 2011

I don't really want to get into a debate about whether the Mises Institute is a reliable source (already been there and done that). But I do want to point out that both the Walter Block source and Robert Murphy source are offering almost identical explanations to the labor asymmetry issue raised by Krugman and fleshed out a bit by Hummel in the article. So having both maybe undue weight.--Dark Charles (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"The Austrian School and neoclassical economics are similar in many respects"

We should explain what these are, instead of just explaining the differences. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 February 2012

I'm not clear on what the editing concern is. Where does this come from? Don't the terms Austrian School and neoclassical economics have wikilinks? Such links aid the reader in finding out what they are. --S. Rich (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You could just as easily say that we shouldn't explain what the differences are because there are the appropriate links. If we're going to mention that they are similar in many respects, I don't think it's weird to expect we ought to go over what those similarities are. Do you think we should just get rid of "differences from neoclassical" subsection? I'm open to this idea (since people can just go to the links, as you said). I just think it's inconsistent to explain what the differences are but not the similarities. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 February 2012

I'm still unclear on what the editing concern is. Are there enough diff's & sim's to warrant a table to layout what they are? Just what are we trying to impart to the reader? --S. Rich (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How they are similar in ways other than views held by ~90% of semi-popular to popular economic schools. What should the reader know about their similarities which wouldn't give them a "no duh" impression if they're already familiar w/ basic/very popular economic theories. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 February 2012

Kirzner lecturing on Austrian economics

Seriously, "unnecessary" is your reason for deleting a commons photo of Kirzner lecturing on Austrian economics from the section that mentions Kirzner in an article about Austrian economics? Abel (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the burden is on you to explain why it should be there, as with everything else on this site. If you provide an argument, I may agree with it. Also, I'd be more comfortable with it if we also include at least one other picture in article (otherwise, we're singling Kirzner out). Byelf2007 (talk) 13 February 2012

Sure, my argument is that this is a picture of Kirzner lecturing on Austrian economics in the section that mentions Kirzner in an article about Austrian economics. There is nothing stopping you from adding more pictures if you think that would help balance the article. Abel (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not an argument. There is no controversy about it being a picture of Kirzner lecturing on Austrian economics in the section that mentions Kirzner in an article about Austrian economics and I didn't object to that notion. My question is why it should be there. I don't really care whether there are pictures in the article or not. I just want someone who includes something in an article to justify it. Like, why not just a portrait picture of Kirzner instead? What are the merits of having a picture of him lecture in front of a whiteboard as opposed to a portrait of him? Does it make sense to have a picture of Kirzner instead of Mises and Hayek, considering that they've contributed more to the School? What about having Mises and Hayek, but not Kirzner? Would that be better than having all three? Could it be a problem because we probably wouldn't want a picture of every Austrian School guy mentioned in the article as it would get cluttered? Etc.

Since I don't really care if there are pictures here or not, I'd say the burden is on you to add another picture, because while I don't care about there being any pictures in the article, I'm opposed to there being only one, and I think it's weird that we've got Kirzner in there and not Mises/Hayek. I'll go ahead and add some pictures, since you seem to like this idea (I'm fine with it).

I hope you're more interested in justifying your inclusions in the future. If someone says "unnecessary", you should explain why you think it is, instead of saying the equivalent of "Why should I justify including something in an article if I want it there?" and/or not objecting to the notion that it is unnecessary. And if someone says there's a balance issue, and you like the content you want to include, then you can go ahead and add something to address the concern, since you care more about the inclusion of the material (and, in this case, did not raise an objection to my balance concern). Byelf2007 (talk) 13 February 2012

You prefer portraits, I'm fine with that.Abel (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The picture seems fine to me. I'd weakly support its inclusion. BigK HeX(talk) 07:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Kirzner is one of the few Austrian school economists widely respected in the economics community. I strongly support the inclusion of the photo. LK (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

re-write of lede

Per WP:LEAD -- "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic,..." The mention of heterdoxy in the article is in a lower section. Accordingly, the controversy about mainstream/heterdoxy is now lower. The heterdox term is now closer to its' RS. More importantly, the introductory sentences are much less awkward.--S. Rich (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Also, I invite your attention to this quote recently added to Frederick Hayek: "[He was] almost certainly the most consequential thinker of the mainstream political right in the twentieth century. It is just possible that he was the most consequential twentieth century political thinker, right or left, period." With this in mind, we should be thinking about what "Mainstream" means. E.g., if a Cambridge University Press editor describes "mainstream political right", then (perhaps) we are not giving proper balance to the different "mainstreams". 15:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "multiple mainstreams" is an oxymoron. I'm coming late to this party, but in my opinion not asserting that we are talking about mainstream views as soon as possible is NPOV. ℱorƬheℒoveofℬacon ✉ • ✍ 07:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Stigler on faults of Austrian economists

George J. Stigler wrote the following in his review of the New Palgrave:

"Israel Kirzner's essay on the Austrian economists does not hint at the existence of error, misrepresentation of critics, or tasteless attacks upon the German Historical School, and Klaus Henning did little better with Bohm-Bawerk. An ersatz Austrian is apparently more loyal than the genuine article." (p. 1732)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference errors

Possibly due to cutting and pasting from other pages, a couple of the refs have cite errors. Could someone please clean these up (they are in red in the Ref section at the bottom of the page). Thx. - EuroTrashTrashed (talk) 04:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Internal debates within Austrian School

I think it would be cool have a section on internal debates within the Austrian School. I'm not very familiar with most of them, but I know there are quite a few. Any comments/suggestions? Byelf2007 (talk) 27 February 2012

Although difficult, it would be good if you could do it. Here are some disputes that have occurred in the last 50 years: There was a split between the Hayekians and the Miseans about microeconomic theory. A split recently between libertarians (Ron Paul) and academics (Boetkke, etc.) who both claim the term Austrian school. Also arguments between those who favor the gold standard vs free money advocates. LK (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Heterodox

I made an edit that placed the word "heterodox" in the first sentence of the article, and I posted a comment above seeking input but it was not addressed. If there are apparently no objections, I will replace the term. ℱorƬheℒoveofℬacon ✉ • ✍ 23:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

ABCT

The section on ABCT is way too long, it's almost as long as the main Austrian business cycle theory article. Following Wikipedia guidelines and common practice (see WP:Splitting and WP:SUMMARY), since the main article exists, this article should just have a summary paragraph. Readers who want more are directed to the main article. I suggest just grabbing the lead from the ABCT article and replacing what is here, as what is here just repeats what is in the main article. If no one else does this, I'll do it in a couple of days. LK (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, but I definitely think you're right about it being too long. This page is about the Austrian School and therefore requires that we explain what it is, which therefore requires that we explain what makes it what it is, which therefore requires that we explain its history and theories, so it makes sense for us to have all the background/theory on ABCT. I think replacing what we have now with just a summary paragraph would be bad. However, this doesn't mean we need to have an "Austrian interpretations" or "policy implications" section on this page. Therefore, I'm getting rid of these parts (they're still on the ABCT page) and I think what remains is necessary to keep. Byelf2007 (talk) 14 March 2012

Italicisation

Shouldn't the latin term a priori be italicised in the final paragraph of the Overview? "In particular, the Austrian method of deriving theories has been criticized by mainstream economists as being a priori or non-empirical." Sincerely Crotale (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I made the change. Byelf2007 (talk) 5 April 2012

lead = overview

According to the MOS, the lead functions as a summary and overview of the article; a separate overview section shouldn't exist. Further, the lead as it stands is too short, and doesn't adequately summarize the entire article. I would favor combining the lead and overview, and trimming to remove redundancies. LK (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I made the relevant change. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 April 2012

Bias

Perhaps "weasel" is not the correct term. However, the implication of the article saying "Despite mainstream findings of evidence to the contrary, proponents of the theory conclude..." is that the theory is incorrect. Really, what is the point of inserting a quick mention of its unpopularity (even though it's already mentioned previously in the article) right before the conclusion of proponents? We've already been told it's unpopular. This is just a cheap shot. Yes, it's true that it's unpopular, but that doesn't mean it ought to be mentioned (again) in the MIDDLE of an explanation of the theory. The title of the subsection is "assertions", so it should be limited to that. There's no plausible case of people being confused about whether or not the theory is unpopular when reading that section because it's mentioned early in the article ("The Austrian explanation of the business cycle differs significantly from the mainstream understanding of business cycles, and is generally rejected by mainstream economists.") and there's a criticism section as well ("According to most mainstream economists, the Austrian business cycle theory is incorrect").

Also, I take issue with the word "findings". The word "findings" implies that it's a fact that the theory is false. Furthermore, even if we interpret this as just a conclusion based off of evidence instead of as a fact, many of the sources claiming to have "findings" of the theory being false rely exclusively or almost exclusively on empirical evidence, and basing conclusions of economic theory in this way is controversial to say the least. Byelf2007 (talk) 28 April 2012

agree, it reads like wp:peacock in reverse. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree As well as explaining that this is not mainstream economic thinking, we should point out what specific aspects depart from mainsteam thinking, especially when their claims are contradicted by facts. TFD (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"As well as explaining that this is not mainstream economic thinking" That is already explained in the article. The relevant issue is why we're saying it there (within the context of having already said it in the article). "we should point out what specific aspects depart from mainsteam thinking" How does that relate to this issue? This has nothing to do with "specific aspects", which is already covered in the Criticisms section. "especially when their claims are contradicted by facts" Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Byelf2007 (talk) 29 April 2012

It is not my opinion that their claims are contradicted by facts, that is a factual statement reliably sourced. The article should not only point out that they depart from the mainstream but explain how. TFD (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"that is a factual statement reliably sourced" So your argument is it's a fact because there's a reliable source that says it is? My point is that just because empirical evidence suggests the theory is incorrect does not necessarily mean the theory is in fact false.

"The article should not only point out that they depart from the mainstream but explain how." That's not at issue here. The content in question that I want out does NOT explain HOW the theory departs from the mainstream (which is already covered in Criticisms section), only that it does. And, as I've said, the issue is whether we want to include that information *in the middle of an explanation of how the theory works after we've already said in the lead that it is unpopular within mainstream economics*. Byelf2007 (talk) 29 April 2012

• Disagree.. As already stated elsewhere. I don't plan on dealing with a cross-posted talk page post in multiple areas. BigK HeX(talk) 16:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austrian_business_cycle_theory#Bias Byelf2007 (talk) 29 April 2012

See also - User:ImperfectlyInformed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austrian_business_cycle_theory#Bias Byelf2007 (talk) 1 May 2012

It's been a while since an outstanding objection to the removal of the debated content has been made. The burden is on those who want inclusion of debated material. There is currently a majority of editors (who have written about this recently) that agree with my position. I am making the relevant change. Byelf2007 (talk) 4 May 2012

ABCT and the GFC: Confessions of a Mainstream Economist by Jerry Tempelman

would this be considered a RS, if so, anyone have an objection to me including material from this RS? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It is published by the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. Does anyone know if that journal is rs? Whether or not it is rs, you still have to show that the views expressed in the article are notable, which is best done by showing that the they have been widely reported in publications outside Austrian economics. TFD (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics is published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a private institution who's main purpose is the promotion of Austrian School economics. The journal is peer-reviewed, but only by Austrian school supporters. I'ld say its RS for what Austrian school economics is, and for the views of its proponents; for general economic issues it's likely not RS. LK (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok great, then without further objection, i will add some material about the subject only, not the views. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You should not add material from sources that are not reliable. TFD (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Skousen, Mark. The Making of Modern Economics.

Would this be considered a RS, if so, anyone object to me adding material from here? Darkstar1st (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It was published by M. E. Sharpe and therefore meets rs standards. However, you must follow NPOV when reporting the opinions expressed in the book, which normally means finding a secondary source that explains the degree of acceptance they have obtained. TFD (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A note about the criticisms

I think this page should be a little reorganized. I don't know if this is standard practice for economics articles, but many of the criticisms in this article are scattered throughout the article rather than at the end. In the case of the description of business cycles, criticism is given BEFORE the concept is explained in the assertion section. That at least should be reorganized. 166.19.200.110 (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No, we are simply told that there are criticisms, not *what* they are. This is done in order to provide context for the ABCT section ("Background") before it is explained, so we know a little bit about why it's important and where it stands in the economics field in general. Byelf2007 (talk) 14 June 2012

Predictions reformatted

Here is a partial list, can anyone provide additional corresponding sources, or debunk those provided already? Do not comment on the weight, pov, or any other reason you may not think this info may not be appropriate here, this section merely seeks to match sources to claims. Any off topic comments will be moved to a new section. Please note the source below the corresponding claim.

• late 1920s, as Mises and Hayek warned the West was in an inflationary boom that would soon bust due to the monetary stabilization policy
• Irving Fisher—and Mises even predicted which bank would fail first, sparking the panic—Fisher (whom Milton Friedman called the greatest economist in US history) was bullish, and ended up losing two fortunes—the one he made from patenting the rolodex and his wife's family fortune—in the '29 crash.
• John Maynard Keynes fared no better, also losing his shirt and having to turn to his father to help him through
• Arthur Okun were saying the business cycle had been conquered, and predicted endless prosperity for the foreseeable future. Indeed, Okun's book making this claim was published just a month before the stagflation of the 1970s began.
• Murray Rothbard and Henry Hazlitt, on the other hand, had long warned what happened in the '70s was coming due to Lyndon Johnson's inflation-fueled guns and butter program.
• The Austrians also warned the gold exchange standard implemented after World War II at Bretton Woods was doomed to failure. And fail it did when Nixon closed the gold window.
• Ben Bernanke claimed in a speech in 2004 that central banks had solved the problem of inflation and recession, and he was infamously behind the curve at every stage as the housing crisis unfolded. Since the 1980s, of course, we have had the dot-com bubble, the housing bubble, and the yet to bust sovereign bubble, all of which the Austrians identified years in advance, with Austrian politician Ron Paul famously entering into the congressional record at least as early as 2001 his prediction that easy money from the Fed flowing through government sponsored entities (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) following the dot-com crash was creating a housing bubble that would inevitably burst. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Mises Institute has a more complete list somewhere (of the good-Austrian predictions anyway, if not the bad-mainstream ones). I'll look for it later. Byelf2007 (talk) 12 August 2012

comments on reformatting not including additional sources or debunking existing

You can find original sources if you check out the ones I provided. Also, a lot of these are original sources, like writings by Austrians when I claim Austrians said something, or videos of Ben Bernanke making a fool out of himself. Like the Keynes fact, #1, the source for that is a book, written by a guy I've never heard of (so it's not automatically wrong from being Austrian), and I got it off Wikipedia's page on JMK, no less.--Mahoney

Looks convincing at first glance, but unfortunately it's mostly wishful thinking, cherry picking, and myths that von Miseans tell each other. The only evidence that Mises predicted the Great Depression was the recollections of his wife decades later. Rothbard has essentially been predicting inflation and collapse in every decade since the end of WWII. Did anyone notice the great inflationary surge of the 90s, 00s and 10s? Peter Schiff famously predicted the collapse of the US dollar in the late 00s, that didn't turn out well for him either.

When the only prediction you make is 'There will be disaster, things will collapse, just you wait and see!' It's hard to be proven wrong ("just wait!") and easy to find vindication in every disaster that comes along. Testable predictions include specific predictions about the behavior of macroeconomic variables like interest rates, inflation, unemployment and capacity utilization; and also specific plausible descriptions of the mechanisms involved in any macroeconomic event. Austrian business cycle theory has long ago been shown to be incorrect, or at best incomplete, even Hayek accepted this in the 1940s. LK (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm mostly in agreement with LK here. Putting up a prediction section is tough because, in order to be neutral, we basically have to have a *comprehensive* assessment of these predictions across decades with some sort of objective measurement of success/failure. That's tough. Also, since Peter Schiff and Ron Paul haven't contributed to Austrian theory, does that mean we should include their predictions as a part of the Austrian track record anyway? Also, a prediction can be good and turn out to be wrong because of unprecedented/unlikely intervening events, just as a prediction can be bad and turn out to be correct because of unprecedented/unlikely intervening events. I think that the correct Austrian predictions we have in the article already are almost good enough (maybe a few more would be good)--it's best to focus on the predictions of the most famous Austrians and work our way from there (slowly).

"Austrian business cycle theory has long ago been shown to be incorrect, or at best incomplete" I'm not sure how this *opinion* is relevant.

"even Hayek accepted this in the 1940s." I don't see how that's relevant. This is like saying evolution was wrong because Darwin changed his mind about it, and ABCT has been developed a lot since the 1940s (Sean Rosenthal's work on it is probably the most recent development). Byelf2007 (talk) 12 August 2012

Sourcing is a requirement for inclusion, not a force for inclusion. If and when that gets resolved, on to the main issues So, here is where the soap boxing, synthesis, wp:npov/wp:undue, and problems with trying to put in a whole truckload bundle at once issues would get discussed.North8000 (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well said. I agree. Byelf2007 (talk) 12 August 2012

This is just putting together a number of possibly correct predictions to push a view that the Austrian economists are able to predict the future. We need a source that says that, otherwise this is just original research to push a POV. Do the Austrians themselves even make the claim? TFD (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well said. I agree. Byelf2007 (talk) 12 August 2012

First, nowhere do I claim Austrians are able to predict the future. That's paragraph one. It's the econometricians who say science is prediction. The point of the section is that, ironically, Ausrrians have been right about the big tectonic shifts when they're the ones who say economics can't predict. Everything I point to is documented historical fact, many of which come from other wiki dis pages. Keynes and Irving lost fortunes--fact. Mises and Hayek wrote multiple times about the coming bust in the 20s--fact. The proper standard isn't: has everyone who ever called himself an Austrian economist always made correct predictions. What school passes that test? It's also not whether Austrians--who admittedly tend to be early in their predictions--get timing right, because Austrians say no one can predict timing (or magnitude) with quantitative accuracy. Indeed, because Austrians are the ones arguing AGAINST the reliability of prediction, you could argue every time an Austrian gets it wrong that only strengthens the Austrian case. The pot shots I'm seeing don't amount to constructive effort in my book. Pot shotting a few sources--poorly--while ignoring the other dozen isn't helpful. And if you don't like my particular sources--and a lot of them are direct, you actually see the subject saying these things--I suggest you find better ones. Its hard for me to guess what "counts" to complete strangers. And dont interpret the fact that i acquiesce and try to placate you as agreement with your criticism--im just trying to build consensus. I'll give this another 24 hours and see where we're at, but since we're talking about documented historical fact, which is there for the reader to look at, and not opinions or arguments, it's hard to escape the conclusion that many here are less interest in conveying information and more interested in protecting their interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmahoney393 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"nowhere do I claim Austrians are able to predict the future."

"Mises and Hayek wrote multiple times about the coming bust in the 20s--fact."

I'm confused.

"because Austrians are the ones arguing AGAINST the reliability of prediction, you could argue every time an Austrian gets it wrong that only strengthens the Austrian case." That depends on how difficult making an accurate prediction about A is concerning variable(s) B over C amount of time with D level of accuracy of standard E (etc). And wouldn't some sort of flipping-a-coin-system would get better results than mostly getting it wrong?

"The pot shots I'm seeing don't amount to constructive effort in my book." I'm not sure what you're referring to, and you're not only getting pot shots--there were/are outstanding objections about your section(s) that you've conceded to. That's constructive.

"And dont interpret the fact that i acquiesce and try to placate you as agreement with your criticism--im just trying to build consensus." So it's your opinion that it's still legitimate to put in a block paragraph with no citations full of redundant content with bad prose that messes up the section ordering without consulting the talk page first and act indignant and call people assholes for reverting it and asking you to justify your edit, or was that/some of that something you've come to agree with us about?

"we're talking about documented historical fact" I've already addressed this point. This is getting old.

I surmise that at this point you're not interested in reading/understanding our objections and you're just here to raise a fuss and waste time and pretend that our objections have nothing to with site quality despite the obviousness of our objections and they're being common standard all over the site and that we're here to be mindless Keynesians. If you don't demonstrate an understanding of what's already been discussed, I'm not going to bother explaining it to you again (I'm pretty much the only one of the *many* editors that have objected to your edits that is putting in the effort, making me feel like quite a fool, because I figured at the outset that it was probably a waste of time, even before being warned by LK, but I thought I would provide you with the benefit of the doubt because I somewhat like the idea of having *a* version of this section. You ought to consider what the lack of explanation of other users signifies, but, since you've repeatedly ignored/conceded many of our objections while still pretending that we're zombies bent on objecting to your material because we think it will reflect poorly non-Austrian schools of economics, I surmise you do not. Apparently, everyone else who looks after this article hates the Austrian School. I don't. You can look over the history of my edits on this page if you don't believe me.).

You can always try to put stuff in we object to, but you'll find that you're extremely outnumbered, which means you won't get what you want in, and that you'll have to actually address our concerns, convince us of your opinions, use arguments to do it, not drop any of our analysis in the process (unless you concede to it, and it's helpful if you let us know that, rather than forcing us just to guess), and wait a while for responses (like, more than 6 or 12 or 18 hours), which is what a great many editors here do on a regular basis. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 August 2012

Also, the stopped clock argument doesn't fly because Ive documented mainstream economists saying, in the same period, disagreeing about the fundamental direction of the economy, not merely time or magnitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmahoney393 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Another problem with trying to war in a massive block of material

This tactic is essentially putting in in hundreds of assertions in at once and then telling people that any of the hundreds that they don't immediately address stays in. People are not going to accept this tactic. Please attempt to get agreement on the individual items (or at least smaller groups of them). North8000 (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well said. I agree. Byelf2007 (talk) 12 August 2012

"Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_required#What_.22Competence_is_required.22_does_not_meanMmahoney393 (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

How can I get agreement if no one makes a real complaint about a source? All I get are vague generalizations about Misesian myths and the implication that an Austrian source needs a mainstream backup, but not the other way around. I don't ask that ppl all at once address each and every source. If one person can cite one problem with one of my sources, other than being Austrian, I'll stop the presses. See you in another 24 hours.Mmahoney393 (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Framing / redirecting it that way is manipulative. Sourcing a requirement for inclusion, not a force or mandate for inclusion. I would suggest starting with a piece (a few sentences) of what you want to put in and engaging in overall discussion about putting it in. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Track Record Material in Question

This is my last version of the section I question. Edits to make the style more objective are welcome. Additions of other sources are welcome. Anti-Austrian prejudice can stay home:

According to economic positivism, which dominates the economic profession today, the primary criteria for judging an economic theory are the accuracy and reliability of its predictions. Mainstream economists thus envision economics as an inductive science like chemistry or physics. Austrians disagree. According to Austrianism, economics is a deductive science, like geometry, whose propositions are true or false according to the logical soundness of the arguments supporting them. As such, Austrians argue reliable prediction is impossible in economics, because when one moves beyond the realm of pure theory the innumerable factors of the world, one of which is human action—which is volitional rather than constant—cannot be reduced to a model.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to juxtapose the predictions of leading Austrians with mainstream economists of comparable reputation. In the late 1920s, as Mises and Hayek warned the West was in an inflationary boom that would soon bust due to the monetary stabilization policy devised by Yale economist Irving Fisher—and Mises even predicted which bank would fail first, sparking the panic—Fisher (whom Milton Friedman called the greatest economist in US history) was bullish, and ended up losing two fortunes—the one he made from patenting the rolodex and his wife's family fortune—in the '29 crash. John Maynard Keynes fared no better, also losing his shirt and having to turn to his father to help him through.

Similarly, during the 1960s mainstream economists like Arthur Okun were saying the business cycle had been conquered, and predicted endless prosperity for the foreseeable future. Indeed, Okun's book making this claim was published just a month before the stagflation of the 1970s began. Austrians like Murray Rothbard and Henry Hazlitt, on the other hand, had long warned what happened in the '70s was coming due to Lyndon Johnson's inflation-fueled guns and butter program. The Austrians also warned the gold exchange standard implemented after World War II at Bretton Woods was doomed to failure. And fail it did when Nixon closed the gold window.

Moreover, while Mises had argued at least as early as 1920 that central planners could not rationally allocate resources without market prices, Paul Samuelson, who has been called the father of modern economics, predicted as late as 1989 that the USSR would eventually overtake the US economically thanks to their modern, scientific management of the economy.

Finally, in 2003 and 2004 Milton Friedman proclaimed once again that, although the Fed had erred in the past, the scientific management of the economy had progressed sufficiently by the 1980s and the future was bright. Similarly, Ben Bernanke claimed in a speech in 2004 that central banks had solved the problem of inflation and recession, and he was infamously behind the curve at every stage as the housing crisis unfolded. Since the 1980s, of course, we have had the dot-com bubble, the housing bubble, and the yet to bust sovereign bubble, all of which the Austrians identified years in advance, with Austrian politician Ron Paul famously entering into the congressional record at least as early as 2001 his prediction that easy money from the Fed flowing through government sponsored entities (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) following the dot-com crash was creating a housing bubble that would inevitably burst. Milton Friedman, on the other hand, gave no indication he ever saw a housing bubble before his death in 2006. Indeed, in an interview in 2005, Friedman praised Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Further, Friedman's fellow nobel prize winner Paul Krugman recommended inflating a housing bubble in 2002 as a way of jumpstarting the economy after the NASDAQ bubble burst. Indeed, while Austrian investor Peter Schiff was ridiculed for predicting the mechanism of housing's disaster (resetting adjustable rates), its rough timing, and the consequences to the financial system, his mainstream counterparts like Art Laffer saw only blue skies. Finally, while mainstream economists and financial media types talked about green shoots after the Bush-Obama bailout and stimulus programs following the global financial crisis, Austrians like Robert P. Murphy were predicting years of stagnation at best.

PS: A reminder of what this site is about, in it's own words: "It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_required#What_.22Competence_is_required.22_does_not_mean So why are other editors asking for this article to be perfect?Mmahoney393 (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This is much better.

I'm glad you think so, because this is the version I had up saturday and Sunday. It seems like your continued objections were directed at my first version. Please try to keep up to date when editing.Mmahoney393 (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If that's true, I still think it's the case that putting in the section without working out all the kinks and getting consensus on talk is hasty. this site doesn't require perfection to post an article. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 August 2012

The first paragraph's content belongs in the methodology section and it isn't necessary to re-state in this proposed new one. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 August 2012

I still can't agree with this. Mainstream economics claims they judge theory by its predictive power. That's an incontrovertible fact. It's essential to understand the weight of what follows. Austrians question predictiction's reliability, seeing it as a matter of judgment that no economic system, in itself, can promise to deliv reliably. If the reader doesn't know this, then it might seem like the claim is that Austrians are impeccable forecasters, when Austrians wouldn't make that claim. There may be some repetition with methodology, but each section should be readable on its own. Without this paragraphs readers could easily just read this section--and many no doubt will, as it's the most interesting--and move on, leaving them with the wrong impression.Mmahoney393 (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You're correct that we haven't explained this in the appropriate level of detail, but I still think it's more appropriate to put this info in the "Methodology" section. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 August 2012

Peter Schiff hasn't contributed to Austrian theory, so I'm not sure it's appropriate to add him (and he's made predictions to the effect of the dollar failing by now a few years back). Byelf2007 (talk) 13 August 2012

Contributing to Austrian theory is a flawed criterion. What matters is that he used Austrian theory to make his prediction. His mistakes on timing are also irrelevant, because Austrians says their theory can only tell you about broad consequences, not timing or magnitude. The rest is a matter of individual judgment and entrepreneurial forecasting ability. Peter Schiffs failings on timing belong on the Peter Schiff page. Your argument implies that I have to stack up every predition of every Austrian against every prediction of every mainstream economist, which is neither practical nor necessary to give the reader an honest impression of the field. It's also especially relevant because Art Laffer disagreed that we had a housing bubble at the time same--watch the video, his dialogue with Laffer is first. That goes a long way to showing that Austrian theory gives you a better understanding of the big picture.Mmahoney393 (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"His mistakes on timing are also irrelevant" I disagree. It's like saying "If you predict X will occur in 2 years and it happens in 200 years for reasons completely different than you thought it would, then that's still a pretty good prediction.

With respect the the AS theorist vs. AS adherent thing, how about we just make sure we indicate that Schiff hasn't contributed to AS theory? Otherwise, if we put his predictions in w/ Mises' and Hayek's etc, the reader way get the impression that Schiff has contributed to AS theory. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 August 2012

I have no problem with saying Schiff is a user, not a scholar.Mmahoney393 (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC) I would note, however, that I do mention Schiff and Ron Paul are Austrian investors and politicians, respectively. That doesn't specifically preclude them from being professional economists, but I felt like it got the point across. Like I said, if you have other language in mind, I don't care how the info is presented, just so long as the words match the substance found in the verifiable sources.Mmahoney393 (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

For the rest, I do agree with you that Austrians (overall) have a better prediction record. The problem is that in order for a section like this to have neutrality it needs to be comprehensive/near comprehensive. I suggest making a new version that incorporates everything (or almost everything) from the Mises wiki. That might be good enough for me to endorse (after a little tweaking). Byelf2007 (talk) 13 August 2012

agreed, perhaps working in predictions one at a time will yield better results. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, though one at a time may be a little too conservative. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 August 2012

Disagree. As I've pointed out elsewhere, this site doesn't require perfection to post an article. If you want to make this more comprehensive, more power to you. But I think that incorporating each and everything from that prediction page would be needlessly space consuming. I cite the page itself several times. It is a convenient, well organized source of sources the reader can access to verify my broader claims.Mmahoney393 (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Mmahoney393, Use the sandbox, I'll help you. --MeUser42 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I put the material in my sandbox. Can u access it?Mmahoney393 (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. However, note, there will be dramatic changes. --MeUser42 (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"this site doesn't require perfection to post an article." I understand your point and normally I would agree with you, but this is a special case: if we're telling the reader about such and such predictions, there's an implied bias against the predictions we're not telling the reader about. Of course, many of those predictions won't be notable, but I just think that we should be extra-careful not to cherry-pick on behalf of the Austrians or the Keynesians or whatever. I didn't mean to imply that we have to have an all or nothing approach to this. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 August 2012

I'm restoring my last version. It's been 48 hours since I did it last, 4 days since this version has been up, and 5 or 6 days since my first attempt. So far I have not seen anyone show, or even seriously argue, that my facts are wrong. You may not like them, but they are heavily sourced and verifiable. I also have not seen any other sources contradicting these propositions. I have edited the work down to the basics: the contrasting positions on prediction, and then pretty bare-bones, historical facts. I have maintained the original paragraph as is for the reasons I've stated: you can't appreciate the relevance of the material without knowing the methodological standard of the mainstream, and the reader may be misled without explaining how Austrians disagree. Because I am keeping the section first, because I think it's enormously relevant, given the professional standard, of the most interest to the broad audience, and of special interest to laymen who don't necessarily care about praxeology. Sections should be understandable in themselves, imo--readers may not read the whole article.Mmahoney393 (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am perfectly open to edits to improve or neutralize prose, organizational edits, even moving the section to some extent (maybe below methodology, but I think many readers would tune out in methodology and not get to this section, which is the most interesting; if you did put it below methodology, the part of the first paragraph about Austrian method could then be cut). I am perfectly open to, and even encourage, the gathering of more sources. Likewise, if you can show a statement is just flat-out wrong, then I would acquiesce in changing or deleting it as appropriate. But just because an Austrian is saying it doesn't make it not verifiable, and is not a substitute for you to confirm or disconfirm the facts or source before editing. "Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, used to define the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth." "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth And please remember, a section doesn't have to be perfect to be published. "Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_required#What_.22Competence_is_required.22_does_not_mean Moreover, I would remind other editors that deleting sourced content posted in good faith without cause is just as much vandalism as intentionally posting false or misleading content. As WP says: "Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT#Signs_of_disruptive_editing Be careful you understand who the real vandal is when you edit. I would ask other editors to show grace and intellectual honesty. You may not like what I'm saying, but that's not sufficient reason to delete my work or impose standards on me above and beyond what's required by WP policy.Mmahoney393 (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I will try to improve the sourcing later by adding time indices to some of the longer videos so users can skip to relevant materialMmahoney393 (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

How about you start listening to what everyone is telling you and stop trying to war in a whole truck load en masse and start proposing specific additions. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"So far I have not seen anyone show, or even seriously argue, that my facts are wrong." This is getting very very very very very very very old. Just because all the stated facts of X content are actual facts and well sourced does not necessarily mean it ought to be included in Y article at all, nor that it ought to when included with Z section-ordering.

"you can't appreciate the relevance of the material without knowing the methodological standard of the mainstream" I suppose that's true. However, how is it requisite that we include it in the section? You could argue that every single section of the article (except for the "methodology" section) requires an explanation of methodology in the section. I'm not sure how not having that explanation in this proposed section affects the context of the content in a relevant way (a "synthesis" issue"). I don't see why this a synthesis issue; it's just a section that talks about the history of predictions.

"But just because an Austrian is saying it doesn't make it not verifiable" Who said or implied that? If you can't answer this question, then how is the statement relevant to this discussion?

"I would remind other editors that deleting sourced content posted in good faith without cause" I'm done discussing this matter with you. I will simply delete any material you put in that I object to if I think the reasoning for the deletion has already been explained (I will reference it the edit summary). Do you know why? Because no one here has deleted sourced content *without cause*. We've *told you* what our reasons are, and you've *repeatedly ignored* those reasons by not addressing them. There is therefore no reason to remind us of this. We understand how this site works--we don't edit in the fashion you have recently nor do we act in this petulant manner on the talk page when people disagree with us.

"You may not like what I'm saying, but that's not sufficient reason to delete my work" You mean we haven't put forward any reasons for our deletions other than, say, something like "you're all just afraid of the truth!"? I don't think you can argue that, because we haven't done that, but I guess you can imply it by telling us a very basic aspect of how the site works.

"How about you start listening to what everyone is telling you and stop trying to war in a whole truck load en masse and start proposing specific additions." We're past that point, but this hasn't gotten any less aggravating. Byelf2007 (talk) 14 August 2012

References

OR & Synthesis

Others have pointed out that the material must be balanced. I'ld like to remind everyone that there are 2 other main content polices. Specifically, people seem to have forgotten Wikipedia's restriction on original research, especially synthesis. An article is supposed to summarise what reliable sources have written about a particular topic. WP:V requires that all quotes and challenged or contentious statements be cited to a reliable source, but WP:OR demands more. It asks that whatever arguments, contentions, positions, or conclusions are in an article must already have been made by some reliable source. Pulling together disparate sources in order to cite a paragraph is not enough to justify it's inclusion in an article. Just as important is that some reliable source must have argued the same point already. A source needs to be cited that is directly relevant to the article and that directly supports the statement. For example, citing an interview by Bernanke in 2005 to compare him with Schiff in order to make the contention that Schiff was much more on the ball in 2005 is not allowed, unless a reliable source has already made such a comparison in order to argue the same point, in which case, that article should be cited instead. LK (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"Track record of predictions"

There might be some non-redundant content here (I'll look into it later), but as is (latest version), it's unacceptable (and of course, having it be the *first* section before (!) methodology is a bad idea). I think anyone who's a serious editor can tell that the content is obviously biased towards the Austrian School without having me pick it apart bit by bit (and then there's the very unprofessional prose). And, of course, the burden is on the person who wants content in, so recent reversions have been inappropriate. These objections are pretty straight-forward and uncontroversial, so it certainly doesn't warrant the calling of Ravensfire, Lawrencekhoo, and myself to be "assholes" for rejecting this fashion of presenting "the Austrian argument".

I think the idea of having a section on the Austrian School's track record of predictions is a wonderful idea and I appreciate the editor's passion. This is not the way to do it. Byelf2007 (talk) 12 August 2012

It's just User:Karmaisking again, the knee-jerk spewing of hate makes it pretty obvious. Apparently he's signed up for some course at University of Sydney and is using the computers there. If you don't want to become embroiled in a time-consuming dramafest, I suggest just reverting on sight. LK (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Just the record, I am Karmaisking and Mahoney has NOTHING to do with me. A geo-loc would confirm this. His name is also very unimaginative and his writing doesn't fit my style (no CAPS for a start!). I admit I'm a "hater" (I hate Keynesian nerd LK like poison) but have never called anyone an asshole. At least not on the Austrian talk page. I have not edited the Austrian pages for many months, as I can now occupy my time much more productively without left-wing idiots distracting me. - LK'sPatsy (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note LK'sPatsy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Karmaisking [1]. --TFD (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So I guess this is the throwing in of the towel. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 August 2012

Yes. LK was getting so trigger happy he was starting to kill off newbies. Within a couple of hours of furtively starting to edit, these newbies were quickly coming to the view (rightly?) that WP was full of anti-Austrian pro-central bank "haters". I wanted to give them at least a couple of days (or weeks) before they arrived at that view.LK'sPatsy (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We could apply for semi-protection. TFD (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If this is still going on tomorrow, then hell yes. Byelf2007 (talk) 12 August 2012

I haven't heard anyone claim my facts are wrong. So, apparently, to get my material in I have to have "consensus," or the approval of rival schools of economic thought? These are matters of historical record, not Austrian opinion. Look up any of the dozens of sources I've given you. If you don't like my prose, you can always edit without changing the underlying facts. Or do I have to produce prose that everyone agrees with or the whole sub-article gets deleted, because thats whats going on. Do you apply those standards to all articles? Heck, right here there are a lot of things that I think are biased toward the mainstream perspective--in the intro, for example, it says eliminating fractional reserve banking is a government intervention, whereas an Austrian would say that's simply protecting private property rights. Is anyone going to take that down for being biased towards interventionism? Because I certainly don't give it my approval, so there's no consensus. And if you don't like it being the first section, which I would argue it should be because it's what most ppl would be interested in—especially of, as the professional standard says, economics is all about prediction—you could, I don't know, change the ordering rather than deleting the whole thing. Just a thought about what a neutral party would do if this was about article quality rather than suppressing the truth.--Mahoney

"I haven't heard anyone claim my facts are wrong." That is not the only relevant consideration here (also: style/prose, relevance of content, redundancy of content, section format ; notability isn't a problem here, but that's also relevant).

" So, apparently, to get my material in I have to have "consensus," " Yes, that is how this site works. You are welcome to start a competing wiki.

"or the approval of rival schools of economic thought?" Where are you getting that? Because we disagree with you? I'm an Austrian adherent, by the way.

"it says eliminating fractional reserve banking is a government intervention, whereas an Austrian would say that's simply protecting private property rights." How is a "government interventionist policy" necessarily inconsistent with protecting private property rights? Also, you say "whereas an Austrian would say..." So, this page is supposed to conform only to what Austrians say?

"Is anyone going to take that down for being biased towards interventionism?" I don't know. Is it biased? You'd have to present an argument for why it's biased for anyone else to think it is. I'm not sure why you think that's "biased towards interventionism".

"Because I certainly don't give it my approval, so there's no consensus." You should learn how this site works before you edit on it. There only has to be consensus *for inclusion* NOT for *eliminating content someone put in*. That's how this site works and it's always how it has worked. The only alternative would be that the only content that could get removed from the site once someone put it up would be if no one objected to its removal. How good of a wiki do you think that would be?

"which I would argue it should be because it's what most ppl would be interested in" Which "you would" argue? There's a big difference between the assertion of an opinion and an argument.

"rather than suppressing the truth." Again, there are still outstanding objections to the redundancy of the content and the style/prose. Also, content requires notability, which your section's content has, but I'm just pointing this out in case you're not aware of it. Byelf2007 (talk) 12 August 2012

So, instead of just deleting my sub-article, how about rewriting its prose according to your standards? I obviously have no problem with it, so I would prefer not to edit and re-edit trying to guess your mind. Second, as far as position, I've given my arguments for number one. But I just want the facts out there. And I'm such a nice guy, I'll let you put it anywhere you want. Third, as far as any redundancy goes, this is a separate sub-article, so it should have readability apart from the other articles. It draws together all the relevant facts, and, at the beginning, sets out a caveat explaining why those facts are relevant, and the competing positions on their relevance: Austrian and mainstream. Have you ever read a book in which nothing from the first chapter came back in subsequent chapters? No, beceause human memory is finite and some repetition actually helps the reader understand the material.--Mahoney

I'm giving the haters 24 hours to come up with something better or I'm restoring my work. I'll try to neutralize the language, but so far all I'm getting from the other side is destructive, not constructive, and not one shred of evidence against my numerous sources.--Mahoney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmahoney393 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Mm, not everyone here is a hater, please help make our case by supporting the section below with additional sources, OR, provide additional details such as paragraph, so others can confirm the material is cited. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"so far all I'm getting from the other side is destructive, not constructive, and not one shred of evidence against my numerous sources" I don't see how we're being destructive, and, in the course of this discussion, you've conceded each of my objections, so I'd say that's quite constructive. Also, I never said anything about there being a problem with the sources.

I would prefer that you post a draft of what you want so we can go over it first (if there's a section put up that someone has problems with, we may not want to edit it right away). Byelf2007 (talk) 12 August 2012

"A" vs. "The"

If the Austrian School is the only school of economics (at the present time) that has each of its listed characteristics (and it's my understanding that this is the case), then shouldn't we say it's "the school..." instead of "a school...". If we say "a", then that implies there's another school with the same characteristics, which therefore means we're not (a) listing each of the Austrian School's characteristics which makes it distinct (unless some other school of economics is the same, but calls itself something else, which would basically just mean that it's not something else) and (b) we're not explaining how the Austrian School is differentiated from the school which shares all of its characteristics. Byelf2007 (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2012‎ (UTC)

Praxeology link in "Methodology"

This may be an inappropriate place for it, but how do I make it so that when the reader clicks on the "Praxeology" link under the "See also" for "Methodology", they'll go to the "Austrian School approach" and not just the praxeology article itself? Byelf2007 (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2012‎ (UTC)

Criticisms of time preference

I think it would be good to put in some criticisms of time preference (for the criticisms section). I'm thinking that we can get some good material from this page: http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

Maybe something like this?

Many social anarchists object to the theory of time preference being applied to an economy as a whole in a capitalist society. They argue that the theory fails to take into account that making profits in a capitalist society is not the provision of future means of consumption, but rather profits for their own sake. Byelf2007 (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2012‎ (UTC)

Footnotes/References

From what I've seen, it's very common to just have a "references" section. Ought we to combine these two sections into one "references" section? Byelf2007 (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2012‎ (UTC)

Tenets 2

It's very difficult to define the Austrian School because there's no one canonical work of 'Austrian economics' ('existentialism' and 'libertarianism' have pretty much the same problem). So, we're not going to get a source that says "Here are the tenets of Austrian School, period", and we haven't found a "Here are, according to general consensus, the tenets of Austrian School" (we've found one or two, but they lack tenets that are generally recognized as tenets by Austrians and non-Austrians alike), hence our predicament.

However, we on this site enjoy the privilege of coming up with our own solutions to this problem. I was involved in a long definition-establishment process for 'existentialism' and 'libertarianism'--in both cases we came up with our own definition, because what else were we to do with so much conflicting information? It's fine for us to take the same approach here and I think we're in a good place now.

So I don't see it as a problem that we don't have a 'reliable source' for our tenets as a whole--it doesn't exist, and even if it did, it would still be controversial whether or not to go with it. I think our only solution is to continue to work on improving the definition. Byelf2007 (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2012‎ (UTC)

Responses to Friedman

What's wrong with these Soto and Garrison statements?

"Jesus Huerta de Soto argues that Friedman did not understand the Austrian theory of malinvestment and used aggregate data series, (such as GDP) which only measure aggregate expansion and contraction."

"Roger Garrison argued that Friedman misinterpreted economic aggregates and how they related to the business cycles he reviewed."

I'm not sure these are redundant, but even if so, why are we not to include one? It definitely isn't redundant w/ the other Garrison quote. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 December 2012

If this isn't explained to me soon, I'm putting them both back in. Byelf2007 (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2012‎ (UTC)