Talk:Austrian School

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

The more the Murrayer?[edit]

As the article stands, it seems no section cannot end without a sentence or paragraph of "what would Rothbard say?" This places undue weight on his views and gives them undue emphasis relative to the other Austrian views and scholars on these subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talkcontribs) 16:18, June 6, 2013

Removed reference of Church-Turing computability as indicator of human actions[edit]

The text read "Mainstream economists have argued that Austrians are often averse to the use of mathematics and statistics in economics. However, independent scholar Martin Sibileau, in 2014, offered a formal proof that, based on the Church-Turing thesis, human action is not "decidable", "computable" and therefore cannot be mathematized. He also suggested a logics-based approach for a definitive formalization of the Austrian thought."

Whether human action is decidable or computable has nothing to do with whether statistics can be applied. As shown by the indeterminacy in quantum state measurements, whether something *can* be known or computed has nothing to do whether it can be statistically modeled.

First Paragraph Terrible[edit]

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

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

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

Prussian Historical School?[edit]

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

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

Just Libertarians in the Closet?[edit]

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

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

Organizations [hide]

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

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

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

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

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

Reisman as Hayekian[edit]

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