Talk:Austrian School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

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

The more the Murrayer?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 16:18, June 6, 2013

Use of the term 'Austrians'[edit]

This has nothing to do with economics.

There are 29 uses of the term 'Austrians' referring to proponents of the Austrian School of economics.

I understand what it means used in the context of economics but the average reader may not. If the average reader is the target audience then using 'Austrians' on its own seems and ambiguous and potentially confusing.

Netscr1be (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Wording of introductory sentence.[edit]

Re this text:

  "The Austrian School theorizes that the subjective choices of individuals underlie all economic phenomena.

It strikes me as a strange sentence. That subjective choices of individuals underlie all economic phenomena seems to be a trivially obvious fact that would be accepted by any economist, rather than a "theory" unique to one school. Is it perhaps more correct to say that this School places more emphasis than others on this area of subjective choices, rather than that it "discovered" that economic activity is always based on subjective choices? Mark.camp (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory text[edit]

The article gives Mises's definition of inflation: "an increase in the quantity of money...that is not offset by a corresponding increase in the need for money..."

In the next sentence a contradictory representation (from Richard Timberlake) of Mises's definition is given: "inflation must refer to an increase in the money supply." No mention is made of the lack of an offsetting increase in the need for money.

Timberlake then attacks this alternate statement of Mises's view.

Either Mises's statement of what he believed is what he in fact believed, or Timberlake's is. Both can't be true.

The current text glosses over the contradiction, and gives the impression that Timberlake is arguing against Mises's view as stated by Mises.

Could this inconsistency please be corrected by someone who is knowledgable in the subject? If the quote of Mises's view is an accurate quote, then the text should indicate that Timberlake's rebuttal was invalid, i.e., that he was attacking a view attributed to Mises which the latter did not put forth. If on the other hand Timberlake represented Mises's view correctly, then Mises's misstatement of his own view should be represented as such, and explained if possible.

Mark.camp (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)