Talk:Austrian School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, 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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Too much negativity, not enough description[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism section violates wikipedia's neutral point of view policy[edit]

Read WP:NPV.

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

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

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

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

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