Talk:Ludwig von Mises

Archives 2004-Jan 2010

Karl died as an infant?

I noticed this in the Richard von Mises article, as well. My question is, how did he die as an infant if there are apparently pictures of him much older?

http://mises.org/Community/media/p/231665.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/media/p/231677.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/media/p/231722.aspx —24.94.131.49 (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Atrociously written

Here we have a sentence that is 121 words long, and has no internal punctuation such as semicolons or commas:

If capital goods were the subject of neither rent nor exchange as per private ownership of those means of production then no barter terms or money prices could arise for them and without the common nominal index of money pricing that allows comparison of costs of production to likely revenues there could be no rational allocation of diverse capital goods in the production of diverse consumer goods whose production requires some use of scarce capital which in a Socialist society would not be distributed according to the more efficient thus profitable capital structures but to any use a theoretical Socialist planner would see fit without the aid of monetary price signals to compare the profitability in a given use of capital.

It's followed by a sentence 124 words long:

Socialism would fail as demand cannot be known without prices, according to Mises, therefore Socialist waste of capital goods would be as chronic as the incentives for production and retention of capital would be low while they were coercively monopolised by a dysfunctional State operating with only the data pertaining to interpersonal comparisons of utility as per democratic production, which is not sufficient for economic calculation and therefore neither for efficient use and allocation of capital whose place in a free market is ordained by the prices set by private owners of the means of production who keep capital where its production is remunerated best by consumers and who liquidate it and pass it to other uses if production is bankrupt.

One wonders if the writer was simply engaging in an excercise to come up with the longest possible sentences. Please, someone come to the aid of Herr von Mises by rewriting this section! 199.46.199.230 (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

How about you? Anyone can edit Wikipedia, just as you've edited this talk page. Welcome aboard! Zachlipton (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I totally subscribe to the above comment. This ranks in the top 2% of the most horribly written Wikipedia articles, and it deals with a subject of wide interest. Mises' views on some subjects (e.g. fiat money) were simply prophetic, whether or not you agree with his philosophy at large. I am a biologist, not an economist, thus cannot take the responsibility to edit this. Please have an economist rewrite the "contributions to the field of economics" section. It is really, really irritating. Giacomo Consalez, Milan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giacomo Consalez (talk • contribs) 11:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Standards

Once again we see a Wiki biography with no mention of ethnicity or religion. The reader might be allowed the inference that since Hayek was related on his mother's side to Wittgenstein, he was partly Jewish. Is this the best we are to expect from Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.16.200 (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Having a tendency to write over-lengthy sentences myself, I have an eye for it in others. Content notwithstanding, some editing in that regard is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.4.187 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Minor simplifications done

I made some edits that I hope fixed the major objections to overlong sentences above. Markelwinsmith (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The criticism section currently does not pass standards

Zachlipton has retrieved the predeletion version of the article stating that the "opinions are well referenced". While I do not contardict your point as such (Milton Friedman did such comment and Mises did leave the room), please reconsider if "Criticism" section really shall consist of ad personam comments directed at diminishing respect for the person, even when the comments are given by such figure as M. Friedman.

To compare the quality level of criticism look at the following excerpt from bio article about M. Friedman:

"Austrian school criticism

During 1971, libertarian economist Murray Rothbard wrote a lengthy article for The Individualist which criticized several of Friedman's viewpoints as totalitarian and statist. In particular, Rothbard criticized these views of Friedman:

  * That the micro- and macro-spheres are entirely separate, with the government needing to take an active role in the macro-sphere (Rothbard saw this as false and dangerous);
  * That it is beneficial for the government to control currency to maintain constant price levels as bogus and harmful, and;
  * That nonpaying beneficiaries of positive externalities created by various services should be taxed to pay producers of that service (Rothbard saw this as an absurd position that opens the door for the most ridiculous forms of totalitarianism).

More generally, Rothbard criticized Friedman's efforts to make the government more efficient as detrimental to individual liberty. He concluded that "And so, as we examine Milton Friedman’s credentials to be the leader of free-market economics, we arrive at the chilling conclusion that it is difficult to consider him a free-market economist at all."[54] Friedman's position on governmental control of money changed since 1971 when this criticism was made.[55] In a 1995 interview in Reason magazine he said the "difference between me and people like Murray Rothbard is that, though I want to know what my ideal is, I think I also have to be willing to discuss changes that are less than ideal so long as they point me in that direction". He said he actually would "like to abolish the Fed", and points out that when he has written about the Fed it is simply his recommendations of how it should be run given that it exists.[5]"

So my point rests: "The section shall be all deleted as it contains no intellectual counter points but only disinformative ad personam smears and poorly fragmented gossip)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.90.178.104 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a biography, so significant views about the person are relevant.   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is the "Criticism" section still here? 66.108.243.166 (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Moi

The quote from Bruce Caldwell is really taken out of context. Caldwell doesn't critize Mises in his book as much as he reports how modern positivist economists viewed his rather heterodox and classical approach. A few lines below he offers a quote from Samuelson as a proof. The Samuelson quote would be much more relevant to the criticism section. --Melt core (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Several passages in this section could be categorized as personal attacks and were thus deleted. The passges did nothing to provide useful background on Von Mises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttocs4591 (talk • contribs)

I motion that the entire criticism section either be re-written, or deleted. People's personal opinions about von Mises do not meet the criteria for relevance. This section reads more like childish name calling than an actual scholarly critique of Mises's work. It falls well below Wikipedia standards to be included here.173.33.238.109 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That would go in a page about his scholarly work. And please, people upset about this criticism page have to be joking. It's one of the softest criticism sections I've ever seen. Every criticism boils down to "I ultimately agree with him but sometimes he lacks tact" and the last "criticism" is just praise with "He doesn't compromise" at the end...which to Austrian schoolers is a compliment. It seems. 128.2.51.15 (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Mises' praise of fascism

I wish whoever keeps deleting my addition about Mises' critical praise of fascism would stop. It is extremely important that it be known to the world that a thinker so revered by libertarians had positive things to say about fascism. Who is it that keeps deleting it? This is indicative of Mises' political sympathies, and thus significant in judging him as an economist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GlennBecksiPod (talk • contribs) 04:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

According to whom?

a) A credentialed expert on the history of thought or another relevant field.

b) Some yahoo with internet access.

If you answered b), I have bad news... Skomorokh 01:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please check talk page archives, specifically here. LK (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion of whether to include this or not, but it's easy to see that authors have found it worth mentioning.[1][2]   Will Beback  talk  09:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you cherry picking a quote, completely out of its context, from a book in which Mises is attacking Fascism (in a chapter where he's deliberately considering the argument for Fascism). Maybe it would be better if you actually read some of his work, so you could follow the argument (his point about the "best intentions" of Italian fascism, insofar as it is reaction to Bolshevism,is rhetorical because ultimately, he claims, both are two sides of the same coin). POV editing, such as yours, is why we have policies on wikipedia about WP:PRIMARY Avaya1 (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, it does seem to me rather a waste of time to bring up the fact that Mises in 1927 thought fascism a valuable temporary bulwark against the spread of communism. Many otherwise respectable people thought so at the time (e.g., Winston Churchill went much further than Mises in praising Mussolini, at around the same time, see [3]). But Will Beback and others have documented the fact that Mises's quote has been repeatedly used against him in print by important commentators, and that might well be enough reason to include it in the article. In any case, the full quote should be given, ending in "fatal error," not in "will live eternally in history." Also, the context of fighting violent communist insurgency should be provided. At any rate, whether to leave the quote in or not should be decided by consensus. - Eb.hoop (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. However, we should document the use of that quote against him, rather than quoting Mises himself, as that would give the appearence of cherry picking. I suggest something along the lines of "Critics of Mises, such as economic historian Brad Delong, have noted that ...". LK (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Of the two published sources Will Beback  talk found: (1) is a footnote in Hülsmann, telling us: 'This sentence is preceded by the following statement that is often quoted out of context to "demonstrate" the absurd contention that Mises endorsed Fascism' (2) the other one is a politics screed by a socialist-activist (called Richard Seymour), who is writing about David Cameron (Cameron has probably never heard the name of Mises): Seymour just quotes the statement out of context to 'demonstrate the absurd contention that Mises endorsed Fascism'.

The only respectable one of those sources therefore tells us not to quote the statement out of context. As for Brad Delong - it's presumably from his blog? if it's from his blog then it's not really a notable source. We shouldn't quote from blogs unless the blog/blogger is itself/himself the subject of the article. Avaya1 (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the update I made regarding Mises' praise of what he saw as positive aspects of fascism was explicit in locating his championing of these positive aspects in his own critique of fascism. This can be checked in Mises' actual writings for anyone that cares to follow the thread to the source. Those here who would not have the truth about their beloved Von Mises made known-- so that "yahoos with internet access" (completely unsophisticated idiots, of course) might read into it and discover the "merit of fascism"-- must refine the addition around the quote or stop deleting it. What are they trying to hide? The quote stays. If you want to sugar-coat it by rewriting the parts leading up to the sentences where Mises praises fascism, be my guess. But I'll keep adding it because it should be known. What's wrong with revealing the truth? It is not stated that he endorsed fascism, but that he simply admired what he considered some of its positive aspects. These are important in understanding the man. All thinkers must be questioned, after all, even the darlings of right wing libertarian thought. GlennBecksiPod (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear GlennBecksiPod: Please keep two things in mind. First, that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "reveal the truth." It's simply a collaborative encyclopedia, with certain editorial policies. In particular, it cannot be a forum for anyone's original research and can only reproduce and summarize material from mainstream, respected secondary sources. Also, you cannot act unilaterally in controversial matters. If you keep adding the quote without first arriving at some consensus here in the talk page, then you will be blocked by the administrators. - Eb.hoop (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Eb.hoop: Please re-read what I wrote above, keeping in mind that there is no argument being made that Mises endorsed fascism. However, the "merit of fascism" is from Mises' own pen. Now, as I have already brought up, the primary source text in which Mises praises what he likes about fascism can certainly be fluffed up/dissected by other parties. This is what I advocate; leaving the quote as it appears in the text, and drawing critical attention to the argument. If you do not like how I have done it, perhaps you can find a way to present his praise of fascism in a way that appears less caustic. On the other hand, that parties here do not think such praise of fascism constitutes a criticism is understandable to me. I, for one, do. You are quite correct that I cannot act unilaterally. But understand that when I had first made this addition it was being deleted repeatedly without any constructive discussion. Now, if there is no consensus on keeping this sourced statement by Mises on the merit of fascism in the criticism section (however we might decide to edit it), then perhaps we can find a more constructive way to wrap Mises' praise of fascism into the article as a whole, without referring to it as a negative criticism. What do others think? GlennBecksiPod (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the complete quote, with a bit more background and references to it being used by DeLong and Seymour. Let's see what people here think. - Eb.hoop (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Delong is a world-renowned economic historian, as such his opinion on this matter is pertinent, and his blog is a reliable source for his views. Wording could use some tweaking, but the issue is notable enough to appear on the page. LK (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

DeLong is not an economic historian. At least that's not what's he's known for, academically. All of his most cited papers are in macroeconomics. - Eb.hoop (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been mostly trying to stay out of this, so I won't be arguing the point much. I lean against inclusion based on DeLong (don't know about the other source), just because DeLong is so prolific on his blog, that for him to mention something in a blog post still seems like a passing comment, and so doesn't add a lot of weight. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Delong is prolific. However, one has to weigh the fact that not much has been written about Mises by mainstream economists. And as such, Delong's opinion is likely notable as one of the relatively few opinions expressed by a mainstream economist about Mises. BTW, in reply to Eb.hoop, Delong describes himself as an economic historian, and his academic papers are mainly in that field. LK (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the quote-mine of Mises where the author is attempting to create a hoax that Mises admired fascism. Mises fled to America to escape the fascists and wrote scathingly of their politics and economics for the rest of his natural life. To try and twist his writings this way is a deliberate and malicious attempt at deceiving readers. This is a clear violation of Wiki's policies on creating hoaxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.238.109 (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This indeed seems like a strange criticism to include. -- Vision Thing -- 18:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Strange" is a perspectival adjective. It conveys no objective information. What is strange to one person can be commonplace to another person.Lestrade (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

Mention of his wife?

Several years ago I am certain I listened to an audio book written by his wife. There is no mention whatsoever of her despite how much she helped him function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.21.88 (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Omnipotent Government and Bureaucracy pub dates and order

I see that Omnipotent Government and Bureaucracy were both published in 1944.

Does anyone know the exact months or dates?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)