Talk:Austrian school of economics/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Charts and Equations

I'm sure I've read somewhere that key figures in the development of the Austrian school of economics made a point of writing books and articles with no charts or equations, because they found these methods of presentation inherently misleading.

So, I have three questions for anyone here who cares to answer them:

1) is that accurate? 2) if so, can you cite me a thinker and the book/article in which he made this point? maybe quote me a sentence on the subject? [not a lengthy passage -- if you give me a sentence, I'm sure Mr. Google will help me find more!] 3) most to the point of this Talk Page -- is the issue sufficiently important that it should get a mention in this article? --Christofurio (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Christofurio. Some Austrians have written books and articles without the use of explicit mathematical models and data. Other Austrians have made extensive use and important contributions in mathematical economics and quantitative empirical research. In response to your question (3) -- I don't think that this issue is important in the abstract, or in general, without reference to the works of individual economists within the Austrian tradition. Some have written explicitly about methodological issues -- Menger, Machlup and Morgenstern, for example, and you might want to begin by reading their words on the subject. SPECIFICO talk 17:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Just an update on my searching: so far the most explicit actual quote I've been able to come up with that might illustrate this issue within Austrian thought comes from P.T. Bauer (who was Austrian-influenced at least even if not strictly one of them!). Bauer said in 1987 that graphs, formulae, etc. contribute to the "disregard or neglect of evident reality” because the use of highly quantitative methods leads to unwarranted concentration on the variables that fit most readily into a formal analysis, and leads to “the neglect of influences which, even when highly pertinent, are not amenable to such treatment.”

“Here there are new clothes, and at times they are haute couture. But all too often there is no emperor within.”

But I'll look to the authors you name for something analogous. --Christofurio (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello thanks for that. I think that, as on many topics, there is a diverse set of views within the Austrian School. We have many authors who only write prose and use no formal methods of modeling or presentation. Then at the other end of the spectrum we have Oskar Morgenstern, who collaborated with mathematicians such as John von Neumann and Clive Granger to apply extremely sophisticated mathematical techniques to economic analysis. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy

A term that I think should be used more to fully describe Austrian Economics is philosophy. The terms informal logic and deductive reasoning are also relevant. This is core to what distinguishes the methodology of his school from other schools that are deeply influenced by positivism and natural sciences.

Robert Sundström (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

In terms of the current content and organization of this article, these aspects of Austrian Economics relate to the individuals affiliated with the Mises Institute rather than to the history of Austrian Economics, its earlier practitioners, or current Austrians of other stripes (as described briefly in the article.) It may be that we ultimately find sources which provide more RS references concerning the Misesian strain as a separate group and which will perhaps provide nomenclature for these neo-Austrians or Misesians as distinguished from the Austrians who are/were more concerned with the larger array of issues economists typically study. SPECIFICO talk 16:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Business cycles --> Fractional reserve banks not banks

I believe the section on Austrian Business cycle theory should refer to fractional reserve banks, not simply "banks". Austrian economists generally believe the over extension of credit can only occur in a system of fractional, rather than full, reserve banking. This is based on reading of Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Ludwig von Mises. Are there objections to these changes? Colonycat (talk)00:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms in multiple sections

I made an edit to the article where I removed criticism that weren't under the criticism section & it was undone. It was said that it was discussed in this talk page that it is the preferred standard to place the criticisms after each subject of the Austrian School contributions but I find it discussed no where on here. I made the edit because every other page that deals with schools of economic thought does not place the criticisms throughout the article they only place them in the criticisms section. Some pages I used as references are the Keynesian School, Marxian School, Mutualist School, Neoclassical School & Monetarist School. The only page that had a criticism outside of the criticism section was the Mutualist page. I think that it should be the ideal setup to keep all criticisms of the specific school of economics within the criticism section.

KidGwakebake 17:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KidGwakebake (talk • contribs)

i have requested this, and attempted to make some edits back in 2010. the situation hasn't improved since. the same few people keep destroying the article in name of "fighting pseudoscience". Krisztián Pintér (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of the term 'Austrians'

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.

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

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)

Krugman

" In February 2013, Krugman further criticized Austrian School economists on their failure to revise their theory of inflation in light of their incorrect prophecies of government-induced inflation following the 2008 financial crisis.Krugman, Paul (February 20, 2013). "Fine Austrian Whines". New York Times. Retrieved 11 June 2013. "

This statement is not a valid criticism. Following the end of the 2008 stimulus package spending there has been a siginificant deflationary trend, exactly as predicted by the Austrian thinkers who stated that government intervention was artificially keeping prices above market rate. Conversely Krugman's analysis of the economic recovery has been consistently wrong on prices, the effect of the stimulus, and market patterns such that it nearly fallen out of the economic mainstream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.196.54 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

agreed, i will remove the passage. Krugman already appears in the article several times, more than most actual Austrians, per weight, his footprint could be reduced. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Austrian School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Economics is mostly gas?

I recall while reading Austrian thought somewhere I found a quote, "Economics is mostly gas",or "economics is gas", or something similar. I can't find the source. Could ardent students of the Austrian economic thought might easily identify the source and develop on this topic please? It would be a good and interesting read.

Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Austrian School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Reverted weird recent addition to inflation section by IP (possibly a sock?)

An IP editor from St Petersburg has been continually adding this content[1] to the Inflation section after being multiply reverted by various editors. If you look at it (see it here), it looks biased, fringy, and OR in parts. I reverted it yesterday per WP:BRD, I suggest to the IP editor not to put this stuff back without consensus. Strangely, after I reverted it yesterday (my first edit here in months, if not years), the IP left a warning about edit warring on my talk page, and reported me to WP:ANI for persistent disruption.[2] Does that smell like a bad sock to anyone? Darx9url (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

More to the point, does it taste like a bad sock to you? 91.122.9.159 (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • IP, please be civil. I'll repost what I've posted at ANI about the original research and the examples:
"As a result, prices steeply rise in those indispensable items, while the total price inflation is subdued or even negative, because the total price inflation reflects the sum total of stagnant or declining wages and salaries. An economy's desperate need for inflationary self-stimulation signifies that the economy has overshot its energy resource base and is "freezing". Money buys heat. The society's elite is the primary recipient of the influx of the additional money. By means of monetary inflation, the U.S. Federal Reserve redirects the dwindling heat to the economic organism's core (i.e., to the society's elite), while sacrificing the economic organism's periphery (i.e., the lower and middle classes):"
This entire portion was unsourced and your justification for this was this BBC article on the effects of the cold on the human body and has nothing to do with economy. You cannot take something like that and use it to justify a point. That is why I said that you had been injecting original research into the article. It also didn't help that some portions of it were written slightly like an essay. The sources you used for this were better, but at the same time the way you phrased things was a bit casual, like the snippet below:
"A desperate need for inflationary self-stimulation signifies that the economy has overshot its resource base and is cannibalizing itself (prices creeping up relatively to incomes, pension funds disappearing) similarly to a drug addict selling things or not paying bills to support his addiction."
There was also the questionable addition of a picture from Alice in Wonderland, which was accompanied by this remark:
"As an economy becomes more and more resource-strapped, the sustention of even a zero growth in the quantity of supplied goods and services requires an increasingly higher monetary inflation."
Basically, why are you adding this image? How does it explicitly support what is being said in the article? Where has Alice in Wonderland explicitly been used to discuss economics in this fashion? Wikipedia discourages the use of random images to make a point in the article because this is something that can easily stray into OR territory. Adding this would require that Alice in Wonderland be used as a frequent analogy for monetary inflation and even then, you'd have to show that this image specifically has been used in order to clarify to the average reader why you're including it. You can't just add things willy nilly. At this point you have reverted this three times. Do not revert this again or you will run the risk of getting blocked from editing. Please discuss this on the talk page of the article before making any major edits or re-adding the material. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It also doesn't help that you have bolded various sections in order to emphasize things, another thing that Wikipedia discourages. Wikipedia generally only bolds titles of articles or in places where the quote in question explicitly uses bolding. From what I can see, the author of the essay you quoted did not use bold text in its printing. This is also another thing that can be considered original research because without the author explicitly stating that they wanted that emphasis via bolding, we have to assume that the emphasis is a viewpoint that is being made by the person adding the content to the article. (In other words, original research.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Too much negativity, not enough description

Skimming through this content, I am stunned by how much space is spent criticizing Austrian economics and quoting objections from Keynesians (eg Krugman). Who cares what his opinion is? Aren't Wikipedia readers smart enough to form our own conclusions? (this assumes the document had more information about Austrian economics).

The fact remains that none of the economic schools of thought have proven effective out in the real world (off campus). After the failure of Keynesian policy in Japan (for 29 years and counting), and the failure in Europe and the USA - its clear that Keynesian economics also isn't correct.

Mr Krugman and other Keynesians can agitate all they want about theories and equations - but the only criteria that really matters is whether the theories explain real world observations. Austrian, monetarism, Keynesian schools all have their pros/cons - BUT NONE OF THEM HAVE A MONOPOLY ON ACCURACY. NONE OF THEM. This isn't academia, weak "professors" can't threaten to give people a bad grade if they do not accept academic doctrine.

All the Keynesian academic criticism of Austrian theory belongs elsewhere - arguably on the Keynesian page(s). This page should only state what the Austrian school thinks, with a disclaimer that no economic theory works 100% of the time. Keep the political indoctrination out. Ogreggy (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I suggest that section six be eliminated entirely. Keynesian criticisms belong on the Keynesian school page if they absolutely have to be somewhere. Wikipedians can think for themselves and decide for themselves which economic school(s) of thought work in different situations. Economics is not a science, and none of the schools of thought work all the time.
  • I would also suggest that Joseph Schumpeter should be listed as a (loose?) member of the Austrian school. He might not qualify in the strictest sense, but I was surprised Krugman's complaints got a whole section, and Schumpeter wasn't even mentioned???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter

Ogreggy (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I altered the "general criticisms" section to explain the short comings of all economic theory, including but not limited to Austrian school. The opinions of Keynesians from "general criticisms" were moved under "methodology" -- since opinions of opponent groups are opinions, not established facts. This may not be the right place for opposing opinions (I think opinions should be deleted entirely), but it is misleading to label the opinions of alternate schools as anything other than differing opinion. Ogreggy (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section violates wikipedia's neutral point of view policy

Read WP:NPV.

Criticism section included dozens of quotes from Keynesian economists (with vested interest in discrediting other schools of thought). Quotes included claims that Austrian school "fails" or is "wrong" -- based solely on the Keynesian's opinion.

The fact that there are still multiple schools of economic thought proves that there is not a consensus -- thus the opinions of opposition groups cannot be misrepresented as if they were consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogreggy (talk • contribs) 12:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Gordon Tullock, Milton Friedman, Bryan Caplan, Thomas Hummel, Jeffrey Mayer, Jeffrey Sachs Keynesian? Checking ... hmm ... 'No'. Looks like modern criticism of the Austrian School comes from all over the economics profession. Darx9url (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Of your list, all but Milton Friedman are Keynesians. And Milton Friedman (who favored monetarism, not Keynesism) criticized Keynesian economics as well. Despite your biased opinions and indoctrination attempts, many universities do not accept Keynesian economics as correct. Several prominent economists at major universities (Nail Fergusson works at Harvard, as just one example) have ridiculed Keynesian theory. This article has too much political opinion, and is an example of why many colleges do not allow students to cite wiki-propaganda as a reference. Ogreggy (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Gordon Tullock is Keynesian? Bryan Caplan is Keynesian? I think that would surprise them. I could go on, but since you can't be bothered to research before replying, I don't think I'll bother replying more. Darx9url (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Neoliberalism

There are some efforts at improvement going on over at that article. One of the areas in need of work is a section on the Austrian School. Anyone from here is more than welcome to pitch in if you feel the itch. TimothyJosephWood 14:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Meacci's comment on this article

Dr. Meacci has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


The “Austrian School” entry is more detailed that any of the entries above. But I have noticed some arguments that, in my view, are missing or should be lengthened. In particular, I would recommend a brief subsection concerning Böhm-Bawerk (to be followed elsewhere by a much more extended entry at least with regard to his theory of capital). Furthermore I would extend, for instance by adding some specific citations, 1) the eight “Fundamental tenets” of Austrian economic thinking due to Machlup, as well as 2) the discussion of the “Economic calculation problem” and the “Business Cycles” in the subsections that follow suit. PS. See the P.S. on Adam Smith above. See also my papers: “Capital et temps dans l’analyse hayekienne des fluctuations économiques”, Revue d’économie politique, 1999, pp.775-786; and “Hayek and the Deepening of Capital”, in Colonna M., Hagemann H., Hamouda O. (eds.) (1994), Capitalism, Socialism and Knowledge, Aldershot: Edward Elgar, Volume II, pp. 26-44.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Meacci has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference : Meacci, Ferdinando, 2008. "Different Employment of Capitals in Vertically Integrated Sectors: Smith after the Austrians," MPRA Paper 11702, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 02 Oct 2008.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

First Paragraph Terrible

Hi I'm new to WP but the first paragraph is terrible in the sense that few people understand the words methodological individualism. The key insight from Mises is spontaneous order arising from price information from the free market. I hope this is now clear. It's in the same references used, just a more accurate summation of the core principles. MnuchinsGold (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been asked to provide references for the first para change. The O'Driscoll article clearly states Austrian Hayek's "most famous idea" is spontaneous order. The published book Literature and the Economics of Liberty has a good summation of the Austrian School at page 18 - 22 and ties in free market and spontaneous order in that passage.MnuchinsGold (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Austrian School is not Ludwig von Mises thought. It's a mistake to equate the two. The Austrian School has a long literature and history that existed before (and after) Ludwig von Mises. LK (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry it appears you haven't read the references provided either now or previously. Not one of the previous references provided actually said "the sole or main insight that the AS is known for is methodological individualism". The lede was actually original research in that sense. The first new reference says the "most famous" idea of Hayek - a key Austrian - is "spontaneous order". The book Literature and the Economics of Liberty contains excellent summation of Austrian School - it is actually trying to summarise the key insights in AS unlike the other references previously provided - and basically says exactly what I have said. Not one reference I have read says the main insight of AS is "methodological individualism" yet that is the impression from the lede. That emphasis is either original research (which is prohibited) or not reflective of the reference. And the only book I have found that tries to summarize AS in concise terms is the book Literature and the Economics of Liberty. The other references actually don't summarize the School at all so are inappropriate references for the lede. I have no axe to grind, I'm just copying pages 18 - 25 of the book. I never said AS is Mises alone (in fact spontaneous order is emphasized more by Hayek). What needs to happen is to prioritize the key principles of the School. Whatever your personal opinion is, it isn't "methodological individualism" as no one who has written a published work has stated that is the key insight of the School. However the Literature book clearly states the key insights are (a) free market focus (b) spontaneous order (c) subjective value (d) methodological individualism. Picking one out to the exclusion of all the others is unreferenced personal opinion. If you have a better reference that summarizes the School let's see it. Or if you can summarize pages 18 - 25 better please do so. But the Literature book does a great job and is a perfectly valid reference until someone comes up with a better reference that summarizes the whole School. Wikipedia is not supposed to put its own strange slant on the subject, it must rely on secondary sources. MnuchinsGold (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Should have caught on earlier, it's another WP:SOCK of USER:Karmaisking. LK (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Prussian Historical School?

Shouldn't the Prussian Historical School be renamed to either the German Historical School or the Historical School of Economics? I've never seen it referred to as the Prussian Historical School & even the page it links to doesn't refer to it as such. GRosado 03:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC) GRosado 03:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRosado (talk • contribs)

GRosado, you are right that we should refer to things according to how they are usually referred to. Do you have a source that refers to them? If so, we should follow that source. LK (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@LK: I apologize for the extremely late response I meant to respond awhile ago but forgot to. The page that it links to refers to it as the Historical School, I have a technical economics book called Capital & Production where in the introduction Jorg Guido Hulsmann refers to them as the Historical School & I can quote the passages for you. I also have another book by Ludwig von Mises called Theory & History where he discusses the German Historical School & refers to them as such. Also there is a website called History Of Economic Thought that refers to them as such & is loaded with sources & as far as I can tell impartial.
GRosado 06:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC) GRosado 06:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Reisman as Hayekian

I don't recall very well what Reisman thought of Hayek, but I know for certain that he was a devotee of Mises (though not of Rothbard). You could reasonably consider Reisman a non-Rothbardian Misesian. On the other hand, much of his work was about integrating Misesian and classical, pre-Austrian economics (though he shared Mises' rejection of modern neoclassical, mathematical economics). Just think lumping in Reisman with Hayek against Mises is misleading.Jtgw1981 (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Just Libertarians in the Closet?

It seems that most "economic theory" aficionados claim their pet is not particularly partisan, but rather, it represents cold objective reality. Why does the lead section not mention that they (the theories and aficionados) are STRONGLY associated with Libertarianism, if not being almost a definition of Libertarian (Party) economic theory (loosely: the pseudo-worship of the god-like invisible hand, big corporations, and business deregulation etc)?

For example, I only know of the Austrian School and von Mises as libertarian heros, while Cato and Reason are almost synonyms for it. …Another example; the article's main side bar lists, in full:

Organizations [hide]

...and all but George Mason University are proudly and STRONGLY libertarian.

Just wondering why such a strong connection and the implications are not in the article nor Lead section? Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:3C85:BCBC:19F7:E92C (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford

a definition of Libertarian (Party) economic theory (loosely: the pseudo-worship of the god-like invisible hand, big corporations, and business deregulation etc)
Yikes. Please keep your diatribe to yourself. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. 160.39.235.254 (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Not every Libertarian/libertarian is an Austrian (Friedman,Nozick,Rand,Caplan etc.) & not every Austrian is a Libertarian/libertarian (Wieser, Schumpeter, Ropke etc.) Also if that's done for this article then it should be done for all other schools of thought in economics because there are strong connections that can be made to each political philosophy.GRosado 06:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC) GRosado 06:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRosado (talk • contribs)

Has it occurred to you that maybe the political party came from the school of thinking and that your failed attempt to dismiss it is a result of your own personal rejection of the reality of economics? 76.184.220.115 (talk)

Criticisms thread against Wikipedia guidelines?

Is the inclusion of this section against Wikipedia guidelines? See Wikipedia:Criticism in the first paragraph, "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." If this is not against guidelines, why not? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1B0:AE90:9916:E5A4:9199:4338 (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Move

Shouldn't the title be moved to either Austrian school or Austrian school of economics per MOS:AT? —Fezzy1347Let’s chat 14:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

No objection in 24 hours. I'm moving it to Austrian school of economics. —Fezzy1347Let’s chat 14:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Please change the name. 24.160.159.38 (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. Hadal (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Austrian School → Austrian school of economics – Change to sentence case, per MOS:AT. —Fezzy1347Let’s chat 15:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose Moved from technical requests. @Fezzy1347:Too major of a change to make without discussion. I think the common name is just “Austrian School”. —-В²C ☎ 17:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
    "Austrian School" is okay, too; the problem, however, is the uppercase S. —Fezzy1347Let’s chat 14:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The above comments were copied from WP:RM/TR by Extraordinary Writ (talk) at 01:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC).
  • Support. The longer name is common enough to justify its use over the common name for clarity. Srnec (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support 'Austrian school of economics' is much more functional as a title, it immediately gives an unfamiliar reader an idea of the subject, unlike the current title. 'Austrian School' personally implies a distinct organization or institution , instead of a school of economic thought.
Zorblin (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Makes it clear what the article is about without much downside. Bonewah (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austrian_school_of_economics/Archive_12&oldid=1186413375"