Talk:Austrian school of economics

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

"A" vs. "The"

If the Austrian School is the only school of economics (at the present time) that has each of its listed characteristics (and it's my understanding that this is the case), then shouldn't we say it's "the school..." instead of "a school...". If we say "a", then that implies there's another school with the same characteristics, which therefore means we're not (a) listing each of the Austrian School's characteristics which makes it distinct (unless some other school of economics is the same, but calls itself something else, which would basically just mean that it's not something else) and (b) we're not explaining how the Austrian School is differentiated from the school which shares all of its characteristics. Byelf2007 (talk) 24 April 2012

Praxeology link in "Methodology"

This may be an inappropriate place for it, but how do I make it so that when the reader clicks on the "Praxeology" link under the "See also" for "Methodology", they'll go to the "Austrian School approach" and not just the praxeology article itself? Byelf2007 (talk) 10 September 2012

Criticisms of time preference

I think it would be good to put in some criticisms of time preference (for the criticisms section). I'm thinking that we can get some good material from this page: http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

Maybe something like this?

Many social anarchists object to the theory of time preference being applied to an economy as a whole in a capitalist society. They argue that the theory fails to take into account that making profits in a capitalist society is not the provision of future means of consumption, but rather profits for their own sake. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 September 2012

Hahn not Austrian??

Anyone who says Hahn wasn't an economist in the Austrian tradition on the issue of methodology has no idea who Hahn was. See here for a start.

Footnotes/References

From what I've seen, it's very common to just have a "references" section. Ought we to combine these two sections into one "references" section? Byelf2007 (talk) 16 September 2012

Impossible/virtually impossible

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say Austrians think precise modelling of economies is "virtually impossible" because the modeler might get it exactly right with a good helping of luck, or does the whole decision-making actor thing make the notion of modelling them as such, regardless of their actions, intellectually dishonest? I'm afraid I haven't read enough praxeology to know the answer to this. Byelf2007 (talk) 18 September 2012

It's infinitely recursive. Assume an "accurate" model predicts gold will be $2500 by 1 January 2013. This detailed (supercomputer) "modelling" of supply and demand in the gold sector is published. Speculators would then pile in and drive up the price NOW. So (at the very least) the date's immediately going to be wrong. An accurate model would then have to take into account the effect of its own publication, so that the prediction changes again. And again. And again. And again. etc. So it's not "virtually impossible" but really intrinsically impossible. Humans can't model market behavior without affecting that market. Admittedly Martians could. So could some genius with a spreadsheet at home, but if the model was so brilliant and he participated in the market he'd move the market in any case. So any "accurate" "published" model is pointless. See this terrific academic paper on the Austrian School here. To use an analogy, to keep it simple and easy to understand: any "accurate" betting model for horseracing is pointless if published - there are some very successful ones that are confidential however and some people have admittedly made literally hundreds of millions based on those confidential models - but economics is not about confidential models. (Why all half-decent engineers don't get into algorithms on horse racing on the side (with a computer and a few friends) I don't know, but that's beside the point.) Mainstream economists don't admit this is an issue. Ever. They always (always) say "I estimate the inflation rate will be 4%" like they are talking about gravity or the speed of light. They never say "inflation's going to be 4% provided no one takes me seriously". So the whole game is self-evidently stupid, especially when it gets to exchange rates and stockmarkets and housing price estimates. "My perfect model says the US dollar is going to collapse on 1 June 2013 at 12pm!" Well, if you publish that and it makes sense it's going to collapse now. LTCM tried modelling the bond market and they blew themselves sky high, despite being Nobel Prize winners. Also, beyond trying to predict prices via a model, virtually every "variable" in economics cannot be set as a "constant". Lower interest rates "generally" would encourage borrowing. But if people sense there are no profitable investment opportunities (or they are already bankrupt) they won't borrow. So the "model" on interest rate won't work. But Fed economists still think it will because in their model "lower prices increase demand." But humans aren't machines and the equation no longer "works", but they are stuck with their model and can't shift thinking because that's what their model says. They think we are the machines but (ironically) they are because they can't get in their heads that their model is just a model - they can't constantly change every variable in their models to make them accurate at every instance in time and space. It's (again) impossible in the real world. Finally, the point Hahn makes is this: How to you mathematically model political risk? How do you model what Congress is going to do with the deficit two years from now? How do you model what the Fed is going to monetize next (given they can monetize anything)? So economic models can be fun and interesting from an academic point of view but never (ever) try to use them in the real world (or, if it's brilliant and 100% accurate, don't ever publish it). An example of the madness of using models in the "real world" is what the Fed is doing right now. "Lower interest rates increase demand for credit". No they don't, not in all circumstances. - FRB123 (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note FRB123 has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Karmaisking [1]. --TFD (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

No because they reject the possibility of the empirical method being used to develop models to predict social behavior, which includes countless people with free will making individual decisions. TFD (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Better said, with fewer words. FRB123 (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if you realise that you are describing the mainstream theory of rational expectations? Models using this as a principle substitute the prediction of the model into the expectations of the economic agents. Roughly speaking, such a model predicts that all choice variables are at equilibrium and that only unexpected shocks can drive changes observed. LK (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware of both Lucas's rational expectations models and the hypothesis that underpins it. I am also aware of the efficient market hypothesis. You clearly don't understand Austrian theory because that's not what Austrians are getting at. First, Austrians don't believe in stable equilibrium, which underpins Lucas's "silly" models. Second, these models don't model their own publication, although they model agent's expectations (as if "agents" are aliens on another planet). Third Austrians consider future price movements unknowable at a deep level (subjectivism compels that conclusion) but mainstreamers don't "get" this point (geeks looking at other humans as if they are aliens that can be studied like lab rats). The point I was making above is "like" RE and if I stopped there I could understand the confusion. But Austrian analysis goes far deeper than RE models that (basically) say "the market is always right because it's always at peak equilibrium. Let me show you how to model robot-people's inflation expectations...". They say it in "complex" equations but that's essentially what they say. They also talk about inflation getting out of hand through dynamic expectation models - hence the government incentive to lie about inflation to reduce expectations - but again this is "lab rat" stuff. Austrians are more like this: "The market doesn't know the future but continually searches for the right answer. Idiots with stupid mathematical models in government and at the Fed Reserve trying to turn humans into lab rats will only make this complex delicate ever-changing dynamic discovery process much worse because they are the dumbest people in the room but think they are the smartest because they were taught algebra in public school but never invested their heart and soul in a real business. But just because they are stupid doesn't mean the market is perfect. The market is 'good' simply because it is an information mechanism - not because prices are at equilibrium or are 'right' every single millisecond of every single day." - FRB123 (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Austrians reject the rational expectations theory.[2] It is not just that unexpected events can occur or that erratic decisions by some individuals may skew expectations, it is that they do not believe that models can predict human behavior. TFD (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about that. Observe 100 people who accidentally touch a hot iron. Do you think Mises and Hayek would have declined to predict that most would recoil?'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be an argument against Austrian economists. But in economics choices are less stark. Can you tell me for example how much you would have to pay your group of 100 people in order to get 50% to participate in the experiment? TFD (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be very easy to find out, wouldn't it? I wasn't making any argument against Austrian Economics, far from it. I was saying that you mis-characterized it.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No, you are pointing out what you believe to be a fallacy in Austrian economic theory. Where is your source that the Austrians discredited their own theories? TFD (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

As a published Austrian Economist, I am not going to indulge you with further discussion until you are prepared to drop the straw-man arguments and attributing to me positions which I have not embraced. Enjoy your day.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 14:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Tony Lawson and Mohammad Hashem Pesaran, authors of the source I provided, are published economists too. That does not mean that they are right, but I would appreciate a source that supports your view. TFD (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I recall a quote from Mises along the following lines: "When you throw a stone into a pond science predicts it will sink. When you throw a man into a pond, he must first decide whether to sink or swim." Hence the difference. Some decisions no doubt can be "modelled" - most (not all) people will not touch molten iron. Many economic behaviors (what is the best investment today?) cannot (at least not accurately or consistently) not because people aren't self-interested beings but because the information they have to decide on their self-interest is (1) not complete and (2) unevenly distributed throughout the population. - FRB123 (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Another straw-man argument. I know of no economist who claims to have a model that will predict which investment will be chosen by a given individual. Let's stick to the empirically given issue.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Errr... excuse me, you apparently have no idea. I know of many economists who claim that the Efficient Market Hypothesis is fact and THEREFORE predict you cannot consistently make above average returns in the market. But the distribution of actual returns suggests a wider distribution than the economists predict. But they still say you can't beat the market. So they (1) do predict things about investments and (2) ignore real evidence that contradicts their own models. See here. So there's no straw man. Just dead economists hanging in the wind. - FRB123 (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Err, please stick to the point under discussion. Read my words, "I know of no economist who claims to have a model that will predict which investment will be chosen by a given individual." I'll be glad to continue this chat, IFF you choose to be civil. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Lew Rockwell -- Reliable Source?

There are many citations of self-published or other non peer-reviewed writings of Lew Rockwell in this article. I would like to examine each of these and evaluate the associated content. If it seems valid and relevant, I think we should try to find more credible and authoritative sources for that content. Otherwise, we should consider deleting material that appears to be the sole view of Lew Rockwell. Thoughts?'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Rockwell is cited twice, and one of the links is dead. In any event the Mises Inst. is a reliable source. Self-published applies in those cases where the subject of the article writes about him/herself, which is not the case here. Also, what is the merit of the actual material?--S. Rich (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Also, how do we establish that such material is the sole view of someone?06:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and then re-read my comment. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

INFLATION

Bylef, I see that you deleted reference to Mises' statement that inflation of prices follows inflation of the money supply. Please re-read the source, which clearly states this and indeed emphasizes the debasement of purchasing power due to monetary expansion. If you agree please reinsert that language, otherwise please expand on why you disagree. Thanks'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Just to be clear, the observed present-day "monetary inflation" without anything near commensurate price inflation is contrary to what Mises' statement suggests. You're correct there might be monetary expansion that doesn't lead to inflation, but that is not Mises' statement.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with you doing pretty much whatever you want about this as long as it's written in a way that doesn't mislead the reader with respect to my concern. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 November 2012

Hello. I was OK with the previous version. Do you have a way of putting it that addresses your concern? Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"which causes prices to increase relative to what they would have been otherwise"?

I know that's cumbersome, but I always prefer cumbersome and precise to concise and iffy/fudgey. Byelf2007 (talk) 28 November 2012

Hello Bylef. I believe that my latest edit addresses your concern. I also removed some redundant material in the section.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Mises/inflation/Krugman

I have some questions/comments on this topic.

1) Was Mises' view really that price inflation follows as a result of increase in MB, regardless of whether it circulates? What we have now is: "In Mises' view, inflation is the result of policies of the government or central bank which result in an increase in the *circulating* money supply". [emphasis mine]

2) I'm still not sure Krugman's essay is actually a criticism of Mises. [see above]

3) Even if this is Mises' view, I'm still not sure Krugman's essay is remotely plausible, and, therefore, worthy of being in the article:

He says that the model is invalidated because there's very little price inflation despite the large increase in MB. Well, suppose there would be price deflation without the MB increase. Therefore, the MB increase *did* increase price inflation. I don't think Mises ever said "There will be *net* price inflation if MB goes up regardless of anything else going on". As in, if absent MB increase the price inflation rate is negative-5 (or price deflation of 5), and then MB increase leads to price-inflation of 2, are we to conclude that MB did not increase price inflation because it is low? Of course not.

4) I'm pretty sure there are self-described Austrians who have nuanced disagreements w/ Mises on this issue, so we should explore that and consider having the inflation section altered to reflect the views of all Austrians and not just Mises in particular.

5) If it's the case that (all) Mises' views on inflation are not necessarily Austrian, then I believe it would make sense to not include Krugman content--it would be a criticism of a theory of an Austrian, but not an 'Austrian theory'. Byelf2007 (talk) 4 December 2012

In nutshell this is the central economic topic of daily discussion in the USA and Europe in 2012: Will expansion of the money stock inevitably lead to inflation? Mises says yes, inevitably. Krugman produces a counterexample. I don't know of anyone who self-labels "Austrian" but still favors current Fed monetary policy or TARP. Anyway, Krugman has repeatedly addressed this criticism in various forms to the Austrians. It's kind of a hobby for him.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You did not address my question.

Did Mises say, "it's impossible for net price deflation to occur if the 'money stock' expands", or, did he say "price inflation will be higher/price deflation will be lower *than would have occurred otherwise* if the 'money stock' expands", therefore meaning that Krugman is blatantly misrepresenting Mises' views? I'm pretty sure it's the latter, and, therefore, Krugman's critique is not intellectually honest, as in it is attacking a straw man, which is definitely a hobby for him.

Furthermore, I know for sure that Mises said that price deflation occurs (as in prices going down vs. counter-factual, not net price deflation) when the malinvestment bubble bursts. Therefore, it makes sense that he'd say there would be little inflation today: the malinvestment bubble bursting and the money stock expansion would mitigate one another's effects on prices/cancel each other out. As in, Mises made his point without taking into account whether or not there's a bubble bursting, because such a thing could occur, or not occur, whilst the money stock expands. Did Mises ever say "If the money stock expands while there's a huge malinvestment-driven bust then there will still totally be high inflation, like as high as if the huge malinvestment bubble never occurred, like whether or not there's a malivestment bubble bursting will have no effect on prices whatsoever".

Did that happen? Because I'm pretty sure that didn't happen. I'm not going to go along with the inclusion of a 'critique' of anything on this site if it's clearly not on the level. Byelf2007 (talk) 4 December 2012

Bylef, please read the material in the inflation section which summarizes Mises' view. Now Krugman, who is a legitimate source, explicitly criticises this view. Regardless of your opinion on the subject or whether Krugman is incorrect, the appropriateness of this comment for the "criticism" section is as straightforward as I can imagine. Both LK and I have placed this material in the article. Please reconsider your deletion and re-insert the last version of this in the criticism, inflation location. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I did. You're not addressing my points. Again: "In Mises' view, inflation is the result of policies of the government or central bank which result in an increase in the *****circulating***** money supply" [not taking into account whether or not there is a *****malinvestment bust*****]

It has not been demonstrated to me that Krugman is not attacking a straw man. Byelf2007 (talk) 4 December 2012

My friend, you are edit warring. Please undo your last deletion of my text. I appreciate your interest in Austrian economics, but you are simply mistaken about this. Moreover, Krugman clearly states that he is criticizing the Austrian view so your opinion of whether he misunderstands that view does not invalidate his criticism. Please re-read the article and read Mises' Money and Credit. Please undo your last deletion of Krugman's criticism. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This is getting old. If I'm wrong, okay, and I would need to be persuaded of that with *arguments* which *address my arguments* to arrive at that conclusion. I don't care how much I have to revert--every time someone 'argues' with me (when they don't address my arguments and/or make their own), I always win, because mere assertions don't cut it on this site.

Mises said that the expansion of the money supply will necessarily lead to an increase in price-inflation/decrease in price-deflation *relative to the counter-factual of not expanding the money supply*. As in, if you expand the money supply, there will be *more* price inflation or *less* price deflation as a result of that specific policy which will coincide with *whatever else* is going on in the economy which also has effects on prices.

Mises did *not* say "If there's an expansion of the money supply, there will be *net* price-inflation *no matter what else is happening*, even if there's technological-driven price deflation, or malinvestment bubble price deflation, or whatever else.

Furthermore, again, the source *you told me to check out* says "In Mises' view, inflation is the result of policies of the government or central bank which result in an increase in the *circulating* money supply".

Krugman said in his essay that the fact that there is *net* price inflation while there has been an expansion of the money supply disproves Mises, ignoring that Mises didn't say that, unless there's a source you'd like to show me--as in a quotation and not 'oh, just go read his book, it's in there somewhere, trust me', and also ignoring that, according to Mises, a malinvestment-driven bust causes price deflation (not *net* price deflation), and also ignoring that not all the new money is 'circulating' (so Krugman's argument about the expansion of the money supply is clearly disingenuous--he's not addressing how much of the new money is actually circulating in the economy, which is plenty relevant to Mises' views on inflation), but you have provided *no evidence* that Mises ever said the aformentioned, you only *asserted* that.

I explained this.

In response, you said, "Will expansion of the money stock inevitably lead to inflation? Mises says yes, *inevitably*. [emphasis mine] Krugman produces a counterexample." That did not address my points, and you did not demonstrate that this is Mises' view, that, inevitably, expansion of the money supply means *net* price inflation (which is what Krugman is saying). You just *asserted* that it's Mises' view.

And then I explained that.

Then, you said, "you are simply mistaken about this." That's an assertion, not an argument.

And then you said, "Krugman clearly states that he is criticizing the Austrian view so your opinion of whether he misunderstands that view does not invalidate his criticism."

So you argument is "Krugman says it's a criticism, so it is!" This makes what you think of this process very clear.

So him saying it's a criticism means it must be? We're not going to even consider the possibility that it isn't because he says so? We're not going to go over what Mises said to see if it matches up with Krugman's criticism? So we're going to include any 'criticism' on this site, as long as the author claims is a criticism?

Let me be clear: This type of issue has nothing to do with whether or not we agree with the criticisms--it is my opinion that Krugman's 'criticism' is not of ABCT/Mises' inflation view. You don't even have to go to another article to see editors taking this sort of stuff out. We already took out the "ABCT is invalid because there were recessions prior to central banking" because ABCT pertains to inflation-driven malinvestment, and, therefore, can occur without central banking. The people who made those 'criticisms' were just as adamant as Krugman that they were criticizing ABCT, I'm sure. That alone doesn't make it true.

And then you said, "so your opinion of whether he misunderstands that view does not invalidate his criticism".

I never said he 'misunderstands' the view, and it's not relevant whether or not he does. I said he *mispresents* the view, which therefore means it is not a criticism of it, which is plenty relevant to whether or not it's valid (in the sense that it addresses what it claims to, and not a straw man).

So here's a quick recap: I present a case that Krugman's 'criticism' misrepresents the view he claims to criticize, you say "But Mises said X" without demonstrating that he did and don't address any of my points, then I demonstrate that it's not true by going with the source you told me to which clearly states the money has to circulate (and not all of the new money is circulating), then you say "Oh, but Krugman says it's a criticism, so it is" again without addressing any of my points.

If you want this included, you need to show me the source which shows that Mises said what Krugman claims he said. In other words, you need to demonstrate to me that Mises said expansion of the money supply means there will be *net* price inflation no matter what else is going on, including if there is a malinvestment bubble bursting, which Mises said would cause price deflation (but not necessarily *net* price deflation), which happened to have occurred in 2007-2009. Byelf2007 (talk) 5 December 2012

Please revert your deletion. You're edit warring. This is the last time I'll address you on this.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Call it whatever you want--you're not addressing my points, which is pathetic. The burden is on the person who wants inclusion. Byelf2007 (talk) 5 December 2012

Look, we don't get to decide whether a criticism is right or wrong, whether it's 'fair' or not. For inclusion in the article, we just ask: is the argument made directly supported by the source (WP:NOR), and is the inclusion neutrally worded and with the proper weight given the notability of the source (WP:NPV). Byelf2007, your arguments need not be addressed by Specifico because they miss the point. The only thing we should care about is whether WP policies are being properly followed, and as far as I can see, they are. As Jimbo put it:

Template:Jimboquote LK (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Your facts are correct and your conclusion is not. There are arguments within a text which accurately describe a thing/topic which forms part of the analysis of an issue which is incorrect/not true/not factual and there are also arguments within a text which do not accurately describe a thing/topic which forms part of the analysis of an issue which is incorrect/not true/not factual. My position (at this point) stands. Byelf2007 (talk) 6 December 2012

You're still arguing that it's 'wrong'. That's besides the point. Please stick to Policy. LK (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"You're still arguing that it's 'wrong'." In what manner is 'wrong', according to you, in this context? You don't answer that question. The answer is relevant.

Did you just not read what I've written on this? I already said it's not relevant whether or not he is wrong--it's relevant whether or not it's actually a criticism of Mises' theory.

Let me be clear (I thought this 'went without saying'): someone could misrepresent a theory and present an argument against it which makes sense/is correct, and they could also correctly represent a theory and present an argument against it which does not make sense/is not correct.

If you admit that the statement "ABCT is wrong because it stipulates that inflation is caused by floating transparent extra-terrestrials in polka-dot overalls" should not be in the criticisms section of this page, then you are agreeing with me on this issue in principle, and, if you want inclusion, must therefore *demonstrate that Krugman's criticism does not misrepresent the Austrian theory he critiques*. No one has done this yet. Byelf2007 (talk) 6 December 2012

Krugman says its a criticism of Austrian school theory. Krugman is notable, that makes his criticism notable. You may claim that he misunderstands Austrian theory and is criticising a straw man, you may even be right. But that still doesn't let you exclude it.

Adopting a rule like "only allow criticisms that do not 'misrepresent' the theory/organization/person' will lead to proponents disallowing all criticisms from a page.

LK (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you didn't address my point on an example a 'critique' we wouldn't allow on this site.

"Krugman says its a criticism of Austrian school theory. Krugman is notable, that makes his criticism notable." Yes. It doesn't mean it's a criticism of Austrian theory just because he says it is.

"You may claim that he misunderstands Austrian theory and is criticising a straw man, you may even be right. But that still doesn't let you exclude it." Yes it does, because this site does not put criticisms up that obviously misrepresent relevant content. Perhaps we should put in every criticism no matter how obvious it is that it misrepresents the theory? This isn't complicated and it's site policy--we only have criticisms of the article subject in the criticisms section.

"Adopting a rule like "only allow criticisms that do not 'misrepresent' the theory/organization/person' will lead to proponents disallowing all criticisms from a page." You'll notice that every other criticism on this page does not misrepresent, and, in any case, your argument is not "This policy is against the rules" but "People will act bad as a result", which is both speculative and irrelevant. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 December 2012

"Tenets"

Bylef, I haven't changed the assertions, just taken the label "theory" off the a priori beliefs and methodological principles, which are not theories. Please undo your reversion. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like you to justify your edit. Major lede changes here are generally very contentious, and I figure this type of change was bound to attract opposition, so I'd like to see you justify the edit (what's a 'belief', 'theory', 'view', 'theory', and how do these each apply to the so-called 'theories' which aren't. why would it be preferable to have it like this and not have all the 'view's be 'belief's, or all the 'belief's 'views'?).

For what it's worth, I agree with the edit and support it. Byelf2007 (talk) 4 December 2012

I don't see anything controversial here. Why don't you re-insert my edit and if anybody wishes do disagree with any part of it, we can discuss it at that time. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Tenets 2

It's very difficult to define the Austrian School because there's no one canonical work of 'Austrian economics' ('existentialism' and 'libertarianism' have pretty much the same problem). So, we're not going to get a source that says "Here are the tenets of Austrian School, period", and we haven't found a "Here are, according to general consensus, the tenets of Austrian School" (we've found one or two, but they lack tenets that are generally recognized as tenets by Austrians and non-Austrians alike), hence our predicament.

However, we on this site enjoy the privilege of coming up with our own solutions to this problem. I was involved in a long definition-establishment process for 'existentialism' and 'libertarianism'--in both cases we came up with our own definition, because what else were we to do with so much conflicting information? It's fine for us to take the same approach here and I think we're in a good place now.

So I don't see it as a problem that we don't have a 'reliable source' for our tenets as a whole--it doesn't exist, and even if it did, it would still be controversial whether or not to go with it. I think our only solution is to continue to work on improving the definition. Byelf2007 (talk) 4 December 2012

Simplify tenets?

What if we eliminate the prefaces to the tenets? ("the belief/view/theory that...") So we'd have: "Economic events are best explained..." "The use of economic models..." "The belief that testability in economics..." Etc. I like this idea. It doesn't seem important for us to distinguish between a belief and a theory (they're all tenets) and this condensed the article (and I think readers would often find all the prefaces to be distracting and unnecessary. Byelf2007 (talk) 4 December 2012

Hi. I don't feel that this list is an adequate representation of the Austrian School approach, so that doesn't make things better. Also it re-introduces the prior confusion between a priori methodological stances and well-stated theories in Austrian thought.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't a methodological stance a theory? I'm not sure what the relevant distinction is: there is Austrian theory which comprises methodology and Austrian theory based on the methodology.

---Hi. No. Please research the meaning of "theory."'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

What if we divide the tenets into two sections? One, the methodology, and, two, the rest? That would make the distinction between the two very clear. Byelf2007 (talk) 5 December 2012

Frankly, I've always thought that having a list of tenets in the lead is a bad idea. Firstly, as a style issue, it looks odd, it isn't what we see in other articles about schools of thought, and it isn't supported by the MOS. Secondly, the lead is supposed to summarise the body of the article. I don't see anything like a super long list in the article, so there shouldn't be a shorter list in the lead to summarise it. I suggest, if it should be kept, to move the whole list into the body of the article. One or two sentences about it can remain in the lead. LK (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"I don't see anything like a super long list in the article"

That's because it's a summary of the methodology and theories sections. Byelf2007 (talk) 6 December 2012

LK, I think you're correct that the list would be less glaring if it were in the context of well-organized exposition in the body. However, the list has other problems. It reads like the recitation of the house rules in an initiation rite. It commingles points of methodology with points of theory but fails to give any operational links between the two species. Overall it has the look of a caricature taken from a quick read of the Mises Institute blogs and not much else. It's quite incomplete. It would be a tough chore to reconstitute the bullet points and redistribute them, integrated, within the body of the article, and I do not currently have an opinion as to whether that would be worth the effort. To the extent the points are significant they'll ultimately be covered in a well-written Austrian School article. Maybe we should get the list out of there and transfer it to the talk page for reference.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and I basically agree.

The problem, as I see it, is that there's no canonical 'this is the Austrian School' book ('existentialism' and 'libertarianism' have the same problem). In fact, perhaps there isn't any 'Austrian School' definition that could be both the organized exposition with operational links you would like to see and also be accurate at the same time. Like, we could do it for Mises, or Hayek, or Rothbard, who each have their own comprehensive views on economics or 'story' where all the Austrian tenets get 'linked up' in their own personal way, but when we're trying to do that in a way that encompasses all Austrians, I don't see how we can have a comprehensive view on economics/story--Austrians are, from what I've read, basically just united by the positions we have listed, or a very similar list (the term 'Austrian economics' came about in hindsight, an attempt to unify the various theories of economists which appeared to go well together/happened to agree with each other on a variety of things).

In other words, there are plenty of comprehensive views on economics which are Austrian, but trying to make a comprehensive view which is Austrian as such may be impossible because it would contradict at least one prominent Austrian (who disagree on how the Austrian positions are connected and/or the various nuances of what they mean).

Yes, having an article on an economic school of thought which is basically the recitation of the house rules in an initiation rite definitely sucks, but perhaps that's all the Austrian School really is--a group of economists who agree on several positions, but not on what connects all of them without it no longer being Austrian.

In fact, one might go as far as to say the Austrians aren't a 'school of thought' at all, as in, they don't have the theoretical cohesion necessary to be a school, nor have the theoretical cohesion of the vast majority of schools--most schools agree on a basic approach or story (so it would be very difficult to create a new brand of it), while the Austrians are more like "we believe in X, Y, and Z, and anything you can come up with that is a plausible way of connecting them works for us--just agree with us on the tenets, and throw in a tenet the vast majority of us disagree with, what would we care? It's all about that list baby". To say the Austrians are a school and/or have a comprehensive view/exposition/story is perhaps like saying the US and the USSR had the same ideology and long-term goals because they fought the Nazis together.

But I definitely would like it if we could make it work. If we do, I think it'd make sense to have a big re-write of the methodology and theories sections and keep a complete definition out of the lede (in favor of an uber-concise summary). I suppose a good place to start would be books which 'explain' Austrian economics. Byelf2007 (talk) 6 December 2012

Responses to Friedman

What's wrong with these Soto and Garrison statements?

"Jesus Huerta de Soto argues that Friedman did not understand the Austrian theory of malinvestment and used aggregate data series, (such as GDP) which only measure aggregate expansion and contraction."

"Roger Garrison argued that Friedman misinterpreted economic aggregates and how they related to the business cycles he reviewed."

I'm not sure these are redundant, but even if so, why are we not to include one? It definitely isn't redundant w/ the other Garrison quote. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 December 2012

If this isn't explained to me soon, I'm putting them both back in. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 December 2012

Edit Warring ---- Byelf2007 Please Revert your recent edits

You are persistently edit-warring. You have been asked to stop on several occasions. Three editors have tried to undo your damage here. Kindly revert your recent edits that deleted properly sourced relevant material from notable economists. You are violating WP policy. I see that this has occurred on at least two previous occasions. [| Byelf2007 block log]

Please revert and take a breather. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

do not revert the article reads better minus trivial clutter, "and you know who else doesn't like..." Darkstar1st (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

do not revert The rule applies only when there is intellectually honest discussion--if someone puts obviously inappropriate content, we don't punish people for reverting that, no matter how often it occurs. And, in this case, no one has put forward a remotely plausible argument for inclusion, it's just (so far) "Krugman said so" and "it doesn't matter if it's true" (even though I never made that an issue).

Again, the burden is on those wanting inclusion, as in it is their burden to get consensus first. Just because someone puts forth an argument for inclusion on talk doesn't mean the content should stay on until someone opposed to inclusion persuades them otherwise. That burden is on the person who wants inclusion--they have to get consensus first. It takes more than "Oh, but I put an argument on talk, so now content has to stay there until you convince me (ignoring the burden), or, until someone put forth a counter-argument, in which case, there's no problem with them reverting (which is what I've always done--I never reverted without an explanation ; not how the process is supposed to work, just saying).

I'd also like to note that every single time (so far) someone has put forward an argument on talk for inclusion, they have invariably abandoned the argument once I respond to it. This clearly demonstrates how seriously LK is taking this process, even if we put aside that the burden is on those wanting inclusion to get consensus first. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 December 2012

Final warning: You have 3 separate instances of 3RR violation in the past few days. You've been directed to the relevant WP policy on the subject. Others have explained to you why no response to your talk messages is needed. You have built an extensive file on talk documenting your disregard of fundamental policy. Please revert the edits or we will have to have this adjudicated. Consider carefully whether that's what you choose.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion of the disagreement above. What is it? North8000 (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

North, to review, begin with "INFLATION" above and review edit comments and bylef's edit history.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure whether you are referring to the history here or the content issue. Speaking as someone who has, over a long time, said "please slow down" many times to Byelf2007, I can say that they are more of a fast moving editing tornado who does a lot of mostly good work without talking much than a warrior. If I may suggest, could the involved folks elucidate the core issues in talk in a way that could lead to a settlement of tis? North8000 (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Starting with "INFLATION" on the talk page and the associated edits in the article. Whatever your previous experience with this editor, the upshot is that Byf is doing nothing good in this instance and has been treated with ample courtesy and the time has come when he must follow community policy.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see 'inflation' section, where I've responded to every objection and my last post has (so far) not been responded to. Also notice my points in this section have (so far) not been responded to. I'm not sure where the rule is that people can get content included while they do not respond to objections. Byelf2007 (talk) 8 December 2012

Instead of edit war talk page messages and reverts that do not contain edit summaries, I suggest WP:M for these disputes. Why? When I see comments that SHOUT and cajole the opposing editor to read policy, etc., I see that the discussion is not engendering cooperation. I'm looking at the edit history, and not the content of the edits (which does not impact my opinion). Please stop.--S. Rich (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Byelf2007 has tried many arguments here, some of them have some validity, but none of them are based on Wikipedia policy. One attempt to block the Krugman content is that Krugman was wrong (presumably because Byelf 2007 is right). Another argument is that what Krugman criticizes is not (how Byelf2007 defines) the Austrian School. These arguments can be answered by a very basic familiarity with Wikipedia's core policies. At this point, I consider Byelf's objections to be clearly devoid of merit, the Krugman material should be kept, and the edit warring on behalf of Byelf's meritless arguments should be reverted, and the responsible editors warned. — goethean ॐ 03:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Krugman, commenting on the antithesis of his own philosophy on the Krugman blog, and you are wondering why several find his musings irrelevant here? would it be too much to ask for an additional source other than his own blog to include the controversial material? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where I stand on inclusion/exclusion, but arguing that policy mandates or supports forcible inclusion of a blog item is two big steps/errors away from reality. Actually it leans the other way supporting removal because it is not sourced by a wp:rs. North8000 (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"One attempt to block the Krugman content is that Krugman was wrong (presumably because Byelf 2007 is right)"

I never made that argument.

"Another argument is that what Krugman criticizes is not (how Byelf2007 defines) the Austrian School. These arguments can be answered by a very basic familiarity with Wikipedia's core policies. At this point, I consider Byelf's objections to be clearly devoid of merit, the Krugman material should be kept, and the edit warring on behalf of Byelf's meritless arguments should be reverted"

I see opinions here. I do not see a justification for the position of inclusion. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 December 2012

The argument using WP:RS is simply nonsense, to be extremely polite about it. Krugman's writing are of course an RS for Krugman's opinions. Byelf2007's argument, again, shows no familiarity with Wikipedia policy. Your personal opinion is not a veto on all of the content in this article. Nowhere is it written that you need to personally approve all content for this article. Please read Wikipedia policy before removing well-sourced content. Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner in economics. His criticism of the Austria school is notable. Full stop. — goethean ॐ 16:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"The argument using WP:RS is simply nonsense, to be extremely polite about it. Krugman's writing are of course an RS for Krugman's opinions. Byelf2007's argument, again, shows no familiarity with Wikipedia policy."

I never said it's not a reliable source.

"His criticism of the Austria school is notable."

I never said it wasn't.

My issue with inclusion is that it's not actually a criticism of Austrian theory. I said this repeatedly. You apparently did not read what I wrote. Full stop.

"Your personal opinion is not a veto on all of the content in this article."

That's true, I never said otherwise, and you've not provided any argument for why you believe I have conducted myself as if I believed this, you merely asserted it, much like you've asserted I said things I didn't and didn't bother to mention the thing I've actually said repeatedly. It's also true that someone who wants inclusion can't get it with just their personal opinion. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 December 2012

Notability concerns which subjects may have articles created about them. It has no relation to whether someone's comments should or should not be included in an existing article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Editors must at least cite POLICY based reasons to remove cited material that is neutrally worded, relevant and directly related to the topic. WP:IDONTLIKEIT type arguments just don't cut it. It doesn't matter whether you think a critique is unfair, untrue, misrepresenting the view criticised, suffers from a logical fallacy or is attacking a straw man. The only thing that matters is: i) is the source reliable and relevant? ii) is the inclusion properly and accurately reflecting the cited material? iii) is it neutrally worded and included with the appropriate weight? As long as is the relevant content policies: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPV are being followed, the material should stay. As I have seen no policy based arguments for removing the material, I am reinstating it. Cited material from a reliable source that is relevant should not be removed without citing a policy based reason. LK (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot of faulty policy-based arguments, and nobody really talking about the core points; why it would be goo to have it in or out. There is no policy that mandates a particular inclusion, nor a policy that says that you need a policy based reason to remove something. North8000 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There is AFAIK, no policy about what MUST be in an article. However, NPV requires us to include all relevant material with due weight. The question is: does the article include neutrally and with proper weight the argument that 'the (lack of) inflation experienced since 2008 is incompatible with Austrian views of inflation'? LK (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The policy objection is relevance.

LK: "all relevant material" Yes, and this has to be established first. My argument is that it is not relevant because Austrian theory is misrepresented.

The burden is those wanting inclusion. Those wanting inclusion, must, for starters, demonstrate relevance, which, in this case, means demonstrating that Krugman does not misrepresent Austrian theory regardless of whether or not his critique makes sense. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 December 2012

Burden for inclusion is for providing sources. Once sources are provided, the burden is satisfied. Arguing that it misrepresents is not an argument of irrelevance. LK (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so if Krugman wrote an article where he said: "The Austrian School of economics argues that we should only figure out economic policy praying to the Gods while we're all super baked.", we ought to include that in the article?

"Arguing that it misrepresents is not an argument of irrelevance." So I can go put a reliable source on the Aristotle page that claims he was a woman from the planet Zytar? Byelf2007 (talk) 10 December 2012

Edit conflict, just adding to my previous note. I don't have the context of specific expertise to weigh in. However I would have the following questions:

• Is that a significantly held viewpoint, vs. a cherry-picked quote?
• It seems spotty, with vague uses of jargon to the point that it really doesn't communicate to a reader, except those with enough specialized knowledge that they don't need to read the article. :-) If it were to stay in, could someone write a more communicative version? North8000 (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Krugman is a notable economist, that makes his critiques notable. Much more so than the non-notable fluff such as this (who is Sean Rosenthal anyway?) that you and byelf apparently consider notable enough for inclusion. LK (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"Krugman is a notable economist, that makes his critiques notable." Yes. You've said that before. I've also explained how I've never said otherwise and that it's not relevant. See my arguments above, which I first made days ago, which still have not been responded to.

"who is Sean Rosenthal anyway?..." This is totally off topic. It's like you're implying "Well, you think this other content should be in, but it's not appropriate for inclusion, so I guess we'd better let the Krugman content in also". Or is this just a general statement of my hypocrisy? That's not what we're here to discuss. If you have a problem w/ Rosenthal content, bring it up for discussion in its own section. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 December 2012

RfC Krugman critique about inflation

Should Paul Krugman's critique about Mises and Rothbard's views on inflation outlined in this Krugman piece[3] (specifically, that the tripling of money base since 2008 has not produced the high inflation predicted by the theory) be included in this article? LK (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• In principle, yes. I'm not sure the text that was in play over the last couple of days is the best representation (it depended too heavily on a quote, imo); also, it would help to know whether there are other sources that help bolster the conclusion that Krugman's view here is important (I suspect there are). I imagine Krugman is not the only economist who has made this observation -- and so perhaps a section on inflation should be more general, not resting on Krugman's views alone. Anyway, in general the issue seems important (a significant historical "test" of Austrian theory) and it should be addressed here in some way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: there is no argument here for inclusion. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 December 2012

Don't tell me that my argument is different from what I say it is. I am arguing for inclusion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not say your argument is different from what you say it is. I said you did not have one.

So what's your argument? And, where is it the paragraph starting with "in principle, yes"? Byelf2007 (talk) 10 December 2012

It's in the paragraph starting with "in principle, yes". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

So what is the argument? Byelf2007 (talk) 11 December 2012

No. See above. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 December 2012

No, not in it's present form If this is a significantly held view, then then I WANT it included in the article. But right now I just see one comment from a blog, and which is so short and vague that, for a reader coming here to learn something (vs. knowing it all already) it really doesn't communicate or support what it is implying. And out of all of the heat above, other than faulty policy-based arguments, I'd seen only one real discussion of a reason for inclusion which is that he is a noted economist and he said it. That's a good point but not enough. I think that my views are similar to Nomoskedasticity's, except that I more directly answered the narrower particular question on inclusion/exclusion of the particular item in question. North8000 (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, silly. The arguments here have been of a very poor quality, and are based on several misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy. Much of the activity at this article could accurately be described as obstructionist and partisan. No valid reason to exclude the content has been offered, or, indeed, exists. The proposed content was written by a Nobel Prize-winning economist, and summarizes well an important criticism of the Austrian school. The proposed content can and should be improved, of course, but again that is no reason to exclude the content from the article. — goethean ॐ 14:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"No valid reason to exclude the content has been offered, or, indeed, exists." In your opinion. So, why is this the case (did you read my objection? would you like to respond to it?)

"The proposed content was written by a Nobel Prize-winning economist" No one is disputing that/its relevance.

"summarizes well an important criticism of the Austrian school" It is my opinion that it is not a criticism of the Austrian School. The burden is on those who want inclusion. You need to demonstrate that Krugman accurately describes Austrian theory in his article. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 December 2012

no in any form A week old blog rant from the most outspoken critic is hardly notable. since inflation did rise during this period, what is your definition of "high"? since most of the increases in monetary supply were very recent, and billions have been added in the week since Krugmans post, perhaps it is a bit early to declare low inflation? what is your definition of low? perhaps a better comparison would be the staggering 2236% inflation since the 1913 shift away from sound money. an ounce of silver will still buy the same weight of coffee, oil, lumber, labor as it did in 1913. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"A week old blog rant from the most outspoken critic is hardly notable." This is obviously nonsense--it's not a 'rant' and Krugman is plenty notable. And none of the other analysis is relevant to this debate--this analysis pertains to whether or not Krugman's criticism of what he describes as Austrian theory is correct or not, which is not relevant to whether or not the content should be included. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 December 2012

Ah, it's the argument from gold-buggery. — goethean ॐ 15:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

impossible to increase the supply of gold without great effort, not so for paper notes, which means the other notes will now be worth slightly less by definition. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you think that your uninformed ideological posturing has the slightest relevance to this conversation shows that you are completely ignorant of Wikipedia policy as well as of basic logic. — goethean ॐ 15:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If the viewpoint is significantly held, why not just get a second (better) source and put in a few informative summarizing sentences instead of just trying to fight in some poorly written sentences from a blog? North8000 (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The source is the New York Times. — goethean ॐ 16:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No For the reasons already given by Byelf2007. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously yes, there is no valid reason to exclude a Nobel laureate's view. I agree with what goethean said. If this were any other page, there wouldn't even be a discussion. FurrySings (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"there is no valid reason to exclude a Nobel laureate's view." ...from an article concerning economics regardless of the content of the view? So, if a nobel laureate says "The Austrian School believes that faeries..." we're to include that as well? Where's that rule on this site? Byelf2007 (talk) 11 December 2012

Site policy is that we are supposed to discuss the merits of the proposed content in good faith without bringing up idiotic, nonexistent counter-examples. — goethean ॐ 15:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

One, there's no response to my argument here (which is just being re-stated here--it still has not been responded to) and my 'counter-example' makes a very clear point.

Two, 'good faith' is not a carte blanche. When someone repeatedly ignores the arguments of the people they're opposing and keep bringing up arguments that demonstrate ignorance of site policy ("but he's a nobel laureate so it must be appropriate for inclusion!", etc.), I stop being cordial. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 December 2012

Question/comment from a 1/2 dummy. I don't really even understand what Austrian School is. I gather that in the areas of dispute it says that a baseless increase in the money supply will cause inflation. I find the Krugman blog (and material which sources it) to be suspiciously vague/scanty, and from an op ed in a blog. But if it expresses a more solidly established criticism, maybe it should be covered in a more solid form. It seems that Krugman is (implicitly) asserting that the "Board of Governor's Monetary Base" is representative of the overall money supply, and Austrian theory says that if it the supply goes baselessly (= our current situaiotn) up, there will be hyperinflation and so therefore, that that shows that the Austrian School is wrong on that point? And if so, have others said that? North8000 (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I tried to add another article which explained and responded to Krugman's article. My addition was, of course, reverted by Byelf2007. Stated rationale was: (no consensus yet) — goethean ॐ 21:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"I tried to add another article which explained...Krugman's article". The article you're referring to did not demonstrate that Krugman accurately characterized Austrian theory. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 December 2012

I suggest that you stop being deliberately obtuse and obstructionist. — goethean ॐ 22:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

North8000, Krugman has written about this issue more than once. Here's another post making the same argument,[4] but unfortunately engaging in some name-calling as well. There is also this article from the AEI that essentially argues the same thing.[5] (See bottom third of the article.) The trouble is that few mainstream economists write about Austrian school theories. However, given what we accept as sourcing in this article, these two should be enough. LK (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article by Shikha Dalmia,[6] a senior policy analyst at Reason Foundation, writing for Reason magazine. I'm not sure if that qualifies as RS. LK (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I just read all of those once. I'll need to read them again to build a picture with respect to the topic at issue. North8000 (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Another Krugman post where he argues the same point:[7]

Youtube video of Mike Norman, a wall street economist making the same argument.[8] (probably not RS)

In this article,[9] Richard Timberlake a retired professor of economics, argues against the Austrian view of inflation, but using the experience of the 1920s and 30s. We should probably add it somewhere.

Bruce Bartlett makes the same argument.[10]

LK (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the majority of those, taken one at a time, are problematic in some way. In most cases the "sources" are participants rather than coverers. I also don't know Austrian well enough to know whether they are arguing against the actual tenets vs. a straw man version of them and whether their definition of the money supply matches that of the Austrian's claims. But I think that together they show that there is a significant group of critics who make a claim along those lines. Specifically, asserting that events, especially a purported large expansion in the money supply without causing large inflation have shown that the relevant tenet of Austrian Economics is wrong. We should have some intelligent coverage of that. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

we all seem to be working on the assumption large inflation has not occurred. what is the def of large/high inflation? since most of the increases (currently 46b a month) are recent, is it a bit early to declare low inflation? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. From my limited angle, the gist of my comment was just that "people are saying this", not that what they are saying is valid. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

not valid indeed. if one starts at the beginning of expanding the money supply till now, the answer is absolutely yes, exponential inflation. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: As I've already explained, this isn't relevant: no Austrian theorist ever said "If you inflate the money supply there will necessarily be price-inflation", they said that there would be price-inflation *relative to counter-factual*. Have Ron Paul and Peter Schiff incorrectly predicted high inflation based on Austrian theory? Yes. Are they Austrian theorists (as in contributors?)? No. Did they base their predictions on Austrian theory? Yes. But economics is the study of people producing and exchanging stuff. If I interpret past economic behavior, I'm doing so on the basis on economic theory only. But if I use economic theory to predict the future, I'm also making assumptions about the future (like no one will invent cold fusion, etc.), so it makes no sense to say "Aha! Your predictions didn't work out, therefore the theory it's based on is incorrect; let's ignore all the assumptions you made about exogenous events." Byelf2007 (talk) 13 December 2012

The only thing of any relevance to this discussion is whether reliable sources say that the Austrian school's account of inflation has been criticized. You have been given plenty of reliable sources which indeed confirm that the Austrian School's account of inflation has in fact been criticized. There is nothing here to discuss. — goethean ॐ 18:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

They're all primary sources on that particular statement, but there is a lot of them and so I tend to not split hairs on that. Trying to summarize them puts us on the edge between summarizaiotn and O/R. What if just took the most detailed / least ranty of them and said that and put the gist of that one in attributed. I.E. "Mr. ABC said XYZ". North8000 (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"You have been given plenty of reliable sources which indeed confirm that the Austrian School's account of inflation has in fact been criticized." No, they confirm that their description of Austrian theory has been criticized. You're arguing that a reliable source which claims to criticize X should be included in an article on X regardless of whether or not it's actually criticizing X. In principle, it doesn't matter if the misrepresentation is slight or incredibly absurd--we don't put non-X content on an article about X and imply it's actually X at the same time. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 December 2012

NORTH

Dear North: Thank you for your careful attention to this matter. I find that the current Krugman reference gives a very straightforward statement of this particular criticism. Krugman explicitly refers to the Austrian theory and illustrates his point by providing a graph of the monetary base vs. time. To relate it to this article, Krugman's statement should be compared to the statement at the beginning of the 'inflation' section of the article: "Mises believed that price inflation must inevitably result when the supply of money outpaces the demand for money." A careful reading of the balance of the 'inflation' section will reveal several further references to the Austrian theory that price inflation as the inevitable result of money-supply inflation. Not conditional, but simply inevitable. P.S. I'm thoroughly familiar with Mises' published works and I have never encountered the word 'counterfactual' in any of them. As LK has pointed out, there would be many more citable sources of criticism available except that Mises' view has been rejected by most economists since the 1930's. For background, consider the latest news: Roughly $100 billion of what Mises calls inflation. Decided by an 11 to 1 vote.[11] There has been surprisingly little controversy about this policy, hence little critical discussion of the underlying issue.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

--Instead of "current" I should have said "the version last edited by LK and subsequently deleted," to wit:

Economist Paul Krugman has argued against Austrian views on inflation. Krugman points out that in the period from 2007 to late 2012, the monetary base increased by more than 350% with concomitant price inflation of less than 3% per year. According to Krugman, "If you believe that... expanding credit will simply result in too much money chasing too few goods, and hence a lot of inflation... the failure of high inflation to materialize amounts to a decisive rejection of that [Austrian] model".

at {00:22, 7 December 2012‎ Lawrencekhoo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (77,742 bytes) (-20)‎ . . (→‎Inflation: actually Krugman calls it the Austrian view) (undo)}

'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"Mises believed that price inflation must inevitably result when the supply of money outpaces the demand for money." Yes, relative to the counter-factual. He never said "there will be net price inflation if the supply of money outpaces the demand for money no matter what else is going on, including the invention of cold fusion or a recession where businesses slash prices to liquidate their inventory. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 December 2012

As of 11 December

The vote is currently 5 in favor and 4 opposed, and it's been a couple days since a new argument for inclusion has been put forward. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 December 2012

Byf, I had expected you to understand that this discussion is not likely to progress to a constructive conclusion if it is considered a tug of war with play-by-play updates as to the latest numerical tally. I now ask you to desist from posting such statistics here and to delete the one above, In the alternative you should at least amend it to "5 to 4" since it is a matter of record here that both LK and I, having inserted the content numerous times, do support its inclusion. Thank you.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) It's expeditious for someone interested in the answer. (2) I don't see how it would influence the discussion in a negative way. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 December 2012

Review of arguments in favor

I'm using the last posted (as of now) arguments:

- SPECIFICO - "Krugman clearly states that he is criticizing the Austrian view so...[the] opinion of whether he misunderstands that view does not invalidate his criticism." [18:33, 5 December 2012]

- LK - "Krugman is a notable economist, that makes his critiques notable." [06:03, 10 December 2012]

- Nomoskedasticity - "In general, the issue seems important (a significant historical "test" of Austrian theory) and it should be addressed here in some way." [07:57, 10 December 2012]

- goetheanm - "Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner in economics. His criticism of the Austria school is notable" [16:44, 9 December 2012] "The proposed content was written by a Nobel Prize-winning economist, and summarizes well an important criticism of the Austrian school." [14:02, 10 December 2012]

- FurrySings - "There is no valid reason to exclude a Nobel laureate's view. I agree with what goethean said." [11:44, 11 December 2012]

---

Byfe, It is inappropriate and counterproductive for you to purport to represent the views of those who disagree with you. You should revert the above 'Review.'

You have stated your own positions numerous times, now please sit back and allow the process to advance.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Austrians against "probability"??

Probability means many things. No Austrian would argue you shouldn't use probability analysis to decide the returns on casino gambling or cards or roulette or horse races or a thousand other economic/financial topics. Mises was against the inappropriate use of probability in economic modelling because mainstream economists use probability in finance as if it's "objective" reality rather than a reflection of subjective ignorance. The current version is appallingly bad because it completely misses the critique Austrians make about modern financial modelling. I can't make it any clearer than this. Can somebody read the references provided and confirm and add these back in please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.151.75 (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you propose as a solution? I'm not what I'm supposed to get out of reading these sources that you expect us to.

"No Austrian would argue you shouldn't use probability analysis..." I think you're misunderstanding--the article basically says you shouldn't use it to analysis human behavior, which is not quite the same thing (roulettes and horses don't have free will). Byelf2007 (talk) 10 December 2012

I assume you mean "I'm not sure what I'm supposed...". I've tried to be as clear as possible in the edit I made. Another suggestion: Someone else reads the references and summarizes them. No one is arguing that the current version accurately reflects the Austrian position. Some people are "puzzled" by my summation of the references which clearly state the Austrian position and have therefore deleted the references. OK, well, someone should come along and more accurately summarize the references. If you don't understand the references, then why not just leave my statement in as the best summation (so far) that we can come up with? You can't say "I don't understand you" and therefore delete referenced material. That is dumbing down articles to the lowest level.

"someone should come along and more accurately summarize the references" I'm afraid you'll probably have to do that--you're passionate about this idea and no one else seems to be.

Could you please post a proposed edit (w/ some 'more accurate summarization of references') with justifications? Thanks. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 December 2012

I agree no one seems to care. So I've added back in my references. I can't believe this is in any way controverial. You can check the refs yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenericAnonIP (talk • contribs) 04:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

---

References