Talk:Austrian business cycle theory

The Great Depression

Despite the fact that they disagree on the reasons, monetarists agree with austrians on what (who) caused the Great Depression:

Ben Bernanke: Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2002/20021108/default.htm

   They agree WHO to blame, but certainly not for WHAT.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.47.215 (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC) 

Central Banks

The role of central banks should be mentioned here somewhere, since the trade cycle first appeared with the creation of national monetary authorities (such as the Bank of england). Earlier cycles where highly localised and overinflating banks were punished by competition (ie: wildcat banks in the US), only wars and major political upheavals could affect time-preferences on a national or international scale prior to the onset of fiat currencies.

Copyvio

From the last paragraph in the "Theory" section:

Since it clearly takes very little time for the new money to filter down from business to factors of production, why don't all booms come quickly to an end?

This is a wholecloth rip from Murray Rothbard's America's Great Depression, as you can verify here. This sentence could probably be used as a quote, but it certainly shouldn't be uncited. It also makes me wonder how much of the article is plagiarized. DickClarkMises 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

plagiarism

This article has been plagiarized from an article at the Mises Institute website (especially the opening paragraph). See here. I am going to attempt to rewrite the article in order to make it not only respectful of copyright, but something resembling well-written. Life, Liberty, Property 02:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, when are you going to start doing that? Four months later and it's still garbage. --76.224.69.130 (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for starters...banks "make" money...really?

"When banks create new money, whether by printing bank notes or entering bank deposits..." Anybody want to clarify this with independent, third-party sources meeting WP:RS that define "printing bank notes" or "create new money"? Flowanda | Talk 01:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you unfamiliar with the Federal Reserve System? The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States. I don't think anyone would seriously dispute that. DickClarkMises (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

While I hesitate to speak for Flowanda, it may make sense to clarify the different senses of "bank" and "money". Generally, only central banks print money, and private banks create a different kind of money than central banks. As written, the statement obfuscates more than it clarifies due to this conflation of different concepts.--Gregalton (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleaner and meaner

I'd been meaning to get to this for a while. I finally got my teeth into this and chewed away for awhile. I hope you agree it's cleaner and sharper now, with an excellent, comprehensive, topical reference from Polliet included for good measure. This reference is the best "condensed" summation of ABCT I have found - other than this even better, wittier, pithier piece by the Famous Mogambo Guru. I'd add The Mogambo in, but I feel sure it would be deleted by WP guardians on the basis of The Mogambo not being a "reliable" source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetThemMintPaper (talk • contribs) 10:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time. It is a definite improvement. It's a tough theory to encapsulate in a concise way. --RayBirks (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good job!

This article was mentioned in this news article: [1] (MSNBC). DickClarkMises (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If, through this article, just one person actually reads (and understands) "The Great Trilogy" (The Great Depression (Rothbard), Human Action and The Theory of Money and Credit (von Mises)) I will be able to die a happy little puppy. - LetThemMintPaper (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If they followed that up by reading The Mystery of Banking I'd die even happier. - LetThemMintPaper (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Origins & Questions sections need to be wikified

The first half of the article needs to be rewritten and wikified.

The origins section is entirely a block quote from Roger Garrison. This raises numerous issues WP:SOAP, WP:NOTMIRROR, WP:NPV and copyright issues as well.

Leading questions as in the Questions section also aren't appropriate, as wikipedia is not a textbook, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, and it potentially violates NPV as well.

Also, care should be taken not to use 'the encyclopedic voice' when stating the Austrian viewpoint. ie. preface all non-mainstream views with 'austrian economic theorists state', 'according to austrian economic theory', etc. If possible, opposing viewpoints should be integrated into the text, so that it doesn't read as if wikipedia is endorsing a particular point of view.

I suggest Fairtax as a reference. It's an excellent article that has taken care to be NPV on a very contentious issue.

lk (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on, let's be reasonable. A couple of points: (1) Many times the article states "Austrian theorists believe" or "Austrian theorists state...". Saying this over and over in an article on ABCT would be repetitive (bordering on ridiculous) (2) This isn't contentious - the article accurately reflects the references (have you read the refs?). The theory itself is the theory. Whether it's right or not (in an absolute sense) is completely irrelevant to this page. If you want to work on business cycles please feel free. That page is a mess! It looks like someone vomited out the page. Given the unmitigated disaster that is business cycles, your comments on this page are...how should I put this...a little on the "nit picky" side. The quote is necessary to show the background. It's not even close to a copyright violation given it's not a "substantial" copy. I'd leave it, and encourage you to go to business cycles and make sure that's kept "mainstream". Austrianism has been so brutalized on WP before it's clear there's no way of making it "mainstream". Other than mutilating it. The theory is what it is. Read the refs before making judgments. Add all you want on the "other views" at the bottom of the page (I encourage neo-Keynesians in particular to add their stuff at the end, especially on the "paradox of thrift"). But please don't try to amend yourself. Somehow I don't think it will work. - LetThemMintPaper (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In reply to (1) I agree that in many places, the article does preface with "Austrian theorists state...". I added some of these myself. However, articles must be careful about stating things in the encyclopedic voice, unless they are undisputed facts. Thus trumps considerations of repetitiveness. As for (2), one can argue that the fairtax is what it is as well. However, this article does not just descibe the pure theory, it relates it to the real world. And ABCT purports to describe how the real world functions. This makes it contentious. As for Origins';, having a section that is entirely a quote does not make a good article. I suggest that you read the WP:QUOTE on this issue. Lastly, I hope you're not suggesting that you object to my making edits to the page. Remember WP:OWN. lk (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're curiously coy about business cycles. No comment on that I see. Too shy to admit it's currently garbage? Admittedly the fact that business cycles is currently a dog's breakfast does not mean your criticisms here are invalid. I just think you should prioritize your life and if you're interested in this topic, WP desperately needs someone (knowledgeable?) to work on business cycles. You seem to be suggested you know your stuff on the topic, so I encourage you to start on that page. I myself have no interest in "improving" mainstream economics or neo-Keynesian economics or business cycles as I had to read that rubbish for my degree and have no interest in repeating the visiting the land of the living dead. - LetThemMintPaper (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)