Talk:Malinvestment
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ThoomBOY. Peer reviewers: Djronkus20, Cornishgamehen, RmtzWIKI, Osetiawan1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
John Stuart Mill vs. John Mills
editApparently there existed a John Mills at the same time. I have removed the following block from the 'Economic philosophy' section:
Panics and Capital
Mill once made a statement on panics and capital, saying
Panics do not destroy capital; they merely reveal the extent to which it has been destroyed by its betrayal into hopelessly unproductive works.
— John Mills, Article read before the Manchester Statistical Society, December 11, 1867, on Credit Cycles and the Origin of Commercial Panics[1]
...everything seems to hint that the quote belongs to this John Mills guy. Can't find it in the collected works of J.S.Mill, nor in other places. The quoted book (see online version) mentions both names independently as well.
If somebody finds, that this is wrong, please correct here and in John Stuart Mills. Pestergaines (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
References
- ^ As quoted in Financial crises and periods of industrial and commercial depression, Burton, T. E. (1931, first published 1902). New York and London: D. Appleton & Co
Agree
edit- Thank you Jessica, you have responded much better than I did.Pestergaines (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Definition
editI think you need a definition of malinvestment rather than just an effect. In other words given an investment how would one determine if it is a proper investment or a malinvestment? How much malinvestment does a boom create? Etc... CD-Host (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert but from the way I understand it, a malinvestment is anything that appears profitable under the boom but would not have been profitable without the central bank policies that precipitated the boom. It's almost something that you can't really judge until after the fact, since further investments get made based on some original (mal)investment and even perfectly sound industries start making investment decisions based on the state of the market after all these other (mal)investments. But basically once the whole thing unravels during the bust, then you know what the malinvestments were by what failed, and after a long boom such malinvestments are usually spread all over the whole economy. Somebody actually associated with the Austrain school (unlike me) is welcome to correct this interpretation of the theory. Mbarbier (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is indeed a fair assessment, and it follows from Mises' definition. The hard part about investing during a boom is recognizing, what is a good investment and which opportunities are artificially inflated. Some malinvestments may be recognized during the boom (say the Housing bubble), some not so. As for the 'how much' question, that would depend on the magnitude of the distortion of the market and how long it lasts. Pestergaines (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Rewriting with NPOV for minority theories
editI'm looking for assistance with rewriting of this article so that it doesn't run afoul of Wikipedia's NPOV principle for minority theories, while avoiding the disparaging formulations that seem to be present at the same time. I've requested aid from Ravensfire back in September, sadly got no feedback yet. Hope someone can help here out! Pestergaines (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please keep after it. The article as it stands has a dismissive attitude. Jive Dadson (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- The article doesn't reflect what has become the dictionary meaning, which is anyone, public or private, making bad or wasteful investment judgments. And it doesn't even reflect the views of many Austrian and other free market theorists who use the term to mean not just the effects of bad monetary policy, but of a broad range of government policies which restrict some forms of investment and encourage others. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)