Talk:Austrian school of economics/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

SPECIFICO: Please refrain from EW

Dear SPECIFICO

I have restored the contribution you reverted, adding Separation of money and state to the "See Also" section. Hayek devoted a book to the topic (here), as did Rothbard (here). So it is indeed a relevant link, which does not appear elsewhere in the article. It falls within WP:ALSO, which I recommend you review.

That being so, if other editors feel this link is inappropriate in this section I would happily accept that consensus.

SPECIFICO: In your short time on WP, you have been warned of EW by ten different editors, and you were already blocked once. For two days now, you have been blindly reverting my edits on Separation of money and state, and refusing to engage in the debate I proposed, to answer my arguments or to acknowledge my explanations on the related talk page. You have been following me through my edits and reverting good-faith contributions while providing no credible explanation. This casts doubt on your WP:NPOV, consists of borderline WP:VAN, and is quickly approaching WP:HA.

Please refrain from reverting any further edits I post. I happily welcome any constructive discussion on any talk page. I always accept the editors' consensus. I gladly acknowledge mistakes when I make them, and trust that whatever I produce can always be enhanced.

Thank you,

Alfy32 (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alfy32, This talk page is to be used to discuss the article Austrian School. Discussion of other matters, including behavioral issues, should take place at the appropriate talk page. Further off-topic chat may be removed. — goethean 20:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, point taken, thank you. I have posted the message on the user's talk page, so please feel free to remove my above comments if you wish. Alfy32 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Krugman Resolution ?

Hello Byelf.

it appears that you have inserted text in the purple box tagged "do not modify" the comments concerning the Krugman criticism, however

it appears that the matter was tagged as closed and resolved in favor of the Krugman criticism, so

it appears that maybe you'll choose to revert your deletion of the statement of the Krugman criticism?

here it is: [1]

Thanks. SPECIFICO 21:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No one has demonstrated that Mises advocated the position which the content in question asserts he did. A 7-5 vote does not change the fact that the has not yet been demonstrated and I'm not sure how it constitutes a consensus either. And just because there are several persons online making claims that aren't true isn't good enough to demonstrate it is. Just because a bunch of persons believe in a falsehood and post it being true online doesn't make it true, no matter how reputable they are, and it's worth noting that Krugman has a history of misrepresenting Austrian views and ignoring responses limited to correcting his misrepresentations by Austrians whose views he criticizes.

What about this as a solution to the issue? I've come to like this idea--the sticking point for me is that it has to be in the 'general criticisms' section.

" Economist Paul Krugman argues that the views of Mises concerning price-inflation, held by some Austrians, has been disproved by empirical evidence. " Byelf2007 (talk) 22 January 2013

Why is the rest of the world negotiating with you over your personal view of this? Didn't we go through a comment process which has been marked resolved? Not following your logic in this case. SPECIFICO 19:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to be snippy. No one has demonstrated that Krugman's critique is a critique of Austrian economics. Where's the evidence? What's being cited? If the criticism doesn't go in 'general criticisms', then the implication is that the mischaracterization is Austrain theory. It isn't. I'm sorry I'm the only one posting about this, but no one has yet demonstrated that Krugman's critique is a critique of Austrian economics.

Would someone like to demonstrate to me that Krugman's criticism is actually what Mises advocated? Like, by quoting the source material and explaining how Krugman's criticism applies? There's nothing obstinate about this. Byelf2007 (talk) 23 January 2013

Snippy? What? I'm merely asking you whether you recognize the following convention: After a discussion has been marked as resolved we proceed according to the finding rather than starting over for an encore run-through of the same arguments from the top? I thought it would be nice if you'd do the honors, but someone else can re-insert the content if you prefer not to. SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Why is the rest of the world negotiating with you over your personal view of this?" Yeah, I'd say that's snippy.

"After a discussion has been marked as resolved we proceed according to the finding rather than starting over for an encore run-through of the same arguments from the top?" I proposed a solution--put it in general criticisms and mention that it's a criticism of Mises specifically.

With regards to the 'encore' bit: I'm bringing up the same point because no one has responded to it yet: No one has yet demonstrated that Krugman's criticism accurately portrays Mises' views for what they are. I don't care if the advocates of inclusion in a form I disapprove of outnumber the opponents--they have not actually done the work of satisfying my resquest. If the advocates of "Barack Obama is an extra-terrestial lesbian" outnumber the opponents, that doesn't mean we include that put that notion as fact on this site. Byelf2007 (talk) 28 January 2013

Your point, such as it is, has been responded to over and over and over again, most recently here, but you refuse to understand the responses. This is now an example of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I support SPECIFICO's suggestion that we move ahead with productive editing of the article. — goethean 18:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There's some lack of clarity here. I think that midstream during the RFC the content changed from one Krugman piece to another. IMHO the second one was less problematic at which point I kind of faded out based on that. North8000 (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, what you cited is obviously not a response to my point, because a claim in that proposed sentence is that Krugman is critiquing Austrian theory. My argument is that what he criticizes is ***not Austrian theory***, which is what must be addressed before we can move forward.

What if we say "Paul Krugman argues that Austrians' view of inflation..." instead of "Paul Krugman argues that the Austrian view of inflation..." Acceptable? Byelf2007 (talk) 28 January 2013

Byelf2007, you are displaying a worrying inability to read, understand and respond to people's comments. I suggest for your sake that you try a little bit harder to read and respond to people' comments in an appropriate, meaningful way. We have spent a lot of time writing these comments, and it is extremely frustrating for you to continually respond with a complete lack of comprehension. Wikipedia has remedies for behavioral issues.

I don't have strong feelings about the change that you suggest; that formulation would be okay with me. — goethean 13:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'll compose something. Byelf2007 (talk) 29 January 2013

-->> BY: You asked to remove "the" and add "s" -- Do not make any other change to what was decided by due process. SPECIFICO talk 17:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The 'due process' of this site is ongoing. No on has yet demonstrated that Krugman's criticism is actually of Austrian theory. Unless and until this is addressed, the content 'decided by due process' implies that it is. I have stated that it is not. The burden is on those who want inclusion. I have yet to be corrected by someone actually citing Austrian theory. Facts are not a popularity contest. Byelf2007 (talk) 30 January 2013

My edit

This is what I put in (I decided to have it in the same paragraph as the other Krugman general critique instead of have its own paragraph, I don't really feel strongly about that):

Krugman also argues that Austrians' view of inflation is inconsistent with empirical evidence.

Not the same text

I think that the Krugman text that folks are putting in is not the inserted Krugman text that was in (and thus the subject of) the majority of the run of the RFC. I recall that mid-RFC it was changed to something (which had far fewer issues) derived from a different Krugman article. North8000 (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Page protection requested

I've posted a request for page protection. [2] While I have not read, let alone parsed, the issues it seems a cool down will help. – S. Rich (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Krugman-inflation issue (Byelf2007)

I am an editor on this site. I am opposed to the (common) Krugman inclusion(s) which has been supported by various editors. I have arguments against it being on this page. My arguments must be addressed, as in actually addressed, if the content is to be on the site. I am open to it being here in one of its popular forms if I am convinced of that being a good idea with arguments that address my problems with it. I am open to a solution to this issue, because I have decided that some mention of this issue Krugman has should be on the page. I am open to compromise. I deserve to be treated with respect.

My argument against having the page say that Krugman argues against 'Austrian theory' is simple, and it still has not been addressed. I don't mean do one has 'responded to it', merely that it has been brushed aside with 'arguments' that are not intellectually honest.

My argument is that what Krugman says is 'Austrian theory' is not Austrian theory. If this page says "Krugman argues that Austrian theory..." if it is the case (as I believe it is) that Krugman is not in fact arguing anything about Austrian theory, then that would mean this page is saying something false is true, something this site is opposed to.

Yes, I realize this site is only concerning with reporting 'fact', and not 'truth', and, to paraphrase Dr. Indiana Jones, if you're interested in 'truth', this is not the site for it. So, yes, we are not interested in whether or not Krugman's argument is correct or not. What we are interested in is whether or not it is actually a criticism of Austrian theory.

If it isn't, it's a pretty simple fix: put the content in 'general criticisms' (see why this section got started in the first place--it's a place for criticisms of people who advocate X, not X itself) and adjust the language so that it explicitly mentions that he's criticizing what he believes to be the ideas of X person (in this case, Mises, or 'many'/'some' Austrians, which is the type of thing we already have in the general criticisms section).

Why would this be controversial? Can someone seriously create an intellectually honest argument that says that Krugman did not argue against something which he says is Mises' view?

If you admit that this site should not put up a criticism by a notable economist (say Krugman) whereby it says he criticizes Austrian theory, if he were to claim that Austrian theory is something that it incredibly obviously it is not (i.e. Austrians generally favor a lesbian-extra-terrestrial-standard for currency as opposed to fractional reserve banking, or free banking, or a gold standard), then at that point, you admit that whether or not he is actually criticizing Austrian theory is relevant to whether or not this page states he is criticizing Austrian theory.

So, would anyone like to demonstrate, if you want the content in, since the burden is on you, as someone wanting inclusion, that what Krugman said Mises advocated, is actually what Mises advocated, and, therefore, that this page should state that Krugman did in fact criticize Austrian theory (in this case, by Mises)?

If not, why is it that you don't have to? And how could this be reconciled with the position that we cannot have a page state something which is obviously not true (like that Mises said that recessions occur because Zeus gets angry or that too many hot women wear green shirts).

I do not believe Mises ever said that anything to the effect of "If you believe that... expanding credit will simply result in too much money chasing too few goods, and hence a lot of inflation...". Do you disagree? Show me where he said that.

As this page already says, Mises said that expanding credit relative to production will cause 'too much money chasing too few goods', as in, if credit expands without a relative increase in goods production, then that's 'malinvestment', not, that any expansion of credit will result in the 'malinvestment', as in, just because there's been a huge increase in expanding credit recently, that does not mean that Austrian theory says there will be malinvestment, because Austrian theory also takes into account whether or not there's been an increase in goods production.

I've been told, when making these arguments (nothing new here), one of two things recently when my removals get reverted (if anything):

one - 'you're the only person fighting this'

One, so what? The arguments count. This site is not a popularity contest: the arguments count. Also, I only see one person ("specifico") writing in opposition to me anyway.

two - we followed 'due process'

Anything on this site is fair game when it comes up against an argument against inclusion.

And it's not like this is a big thing that's been around for a while. I've opposed this from the start, and it has never enjoyed overwhelming popularity or anything close. So, no, I don't think the burden is on me to explain why it should be taken off--the burden is on those who want it up.

You don't like this? Take it up with the admins. I'm sure they'd be intersted to hear about some editors aren't interested in demonstrating that something this page says is a fact is a fact, and that the due process of actually explaining why content should be on the page doesn't apply here. Byelf2007 (talk) 4 February 2013

We have had an RfC on this which closed with 'include with RS citations'. There has been several pages of discussion before that. It appears that no one can demonstrate to your satisfaction what you don't already believe, so it's pretty much a waste of time to even try. It's OK that you think the rest of us are wrong. But it's NOT ok to continue to push against a clear consensus. LK (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that you are overstating and overreaching regarding the garbled RFC on several levels. Especially given how garbled it was. I believe that during the second half of the RFC the material that folks were weighing in on is not even what is being inserted now. North8000 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"We have had an RfC on this which closed with 'include with RS citations'."

Yes, I've said that we should have an entry on this with RS citations. I'm opposed to the CURRENT popular format of having the entry Get it?

"There has been several pages of discussion before that." And?

"It appears that no one can demonstrate to your satisfaction what you don't already believe, so it's pretty much a waste of time to even try." Then you lose on this issue by default, unless you can demonstrate that I'm not making a case and am engaging in 'I can't hear you'. Would you like to attempt to demonstrate that.

And, no, I'm not sure how we get from no one has yet demonstrated to my satisfation what I don't already believe to no one will ever be able to demonstrate to my satisfaction what I don't already believe, and if what is in this case what I don't already believe a very silly idea, then how could anyone ever demonstrate that they should believe it if that person is being a good editor?

"But it's NOT ok to continue to push against a clear consensus."

7 to 5 is concensus?

And wat if someone objects to something on this site that had concensus at one point with a new objection and/or one which has not been intellectually honestly addressed? The content must always stay in no matter what?

Would you like to address/argue against my outstanding objection, about how the current content, as stated, is, in my opinion, false? With arguments?

"Consensus is to Include Krugman's inflation critique, cited with reliable sources (ie, not a blog); however, the criticism should not be written in the encyclopedic voice, but should specifically attribute the perspective, eg "One criticism of the Austrian theory, by Paul Krugman, is that blah blah blah"." That quote, the eg, is VAGUE. As in, it's never stated here what EXACTLY people were voting on, just an incomplete "One criticism of the Austrian theory, by Paul Krugman, is" and then, seriously, "blah blah blah"???

This is getting really really old guys. You know my objection. I wrote it. Please address it if you want the content in. That's how this site works. Byelf2007 (talk) 8 February 2013

North, I checked your concern when you stated it several days ago. The material in the article now is as it was when the RfC began. Despite some interim discussion of an addition, the discussion was not garbled. SPECIFICO talk 01:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So, Byelf, now you are saying that the reason there was negligible inflation in the 2007-2012 period is because the production of real goods rose by 350% to match the 350% increase in money? Sorry, I just had to ask. I urge you to leave this alone now. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 01:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

One, you did not address my objections.

Two, no, I did not say that. You'll notice that you can tell I didn't say that because I didn't say that.

Three, how much of that 350% increase in money actually circulated in the economy instead of just sat in banks? Would you say that's relevant?

Four, even if I said this, how would it be relevant to the issue of inclusion? Like, how is my interpretation of economics relevant to whether content should be included. It's not. That's why I didn't say anything about that.

Five, why did you not actually address my criticism of the content in question? The one about how Krugman is saying he's critiquing Austrian theory, but what he's actually critiquing is not Austrian theory, so it's bad if we say on this site that he did critique Austrian theory, when he in fact did not, but claimed that he did? I'll also note that Krugman loves to talk about 'core inflation', not actual price-inflation, where you measure the general price level, as in including everything, and not excluding things like gasoline, which has consistently had price-inflation higher than 'core inflation' for a while.

Six, would you like to go through Mises' writings and show how Krugman is critiquing something that Mises actually advocated?

This is getting really really old guys. You know my objection. I wrote it. Please address it if you want the content in. That's how this site works. Byelf2007 (talk) 8 February 2013

would you like to go through Mises' writings and show how Krugman is critiquing something that Mises actually advocated?

That would be original research. We do not do that here. Wikipedia editors simply summarize reliable source, one of which is Krugman. That's what we did. I will warn you again that you have entered the realm of actionable behavioral issues. — goethean 21:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Could a notable economist say anything about AS, and we don't make a distinction on the page between a criticism of AS and a criticism of a misrepresentation of AS? Byelf2007 (talk) 8 February 2013

Since you have failed to provide any reliable source which critiques Krugman's critique, it's your word (worthless) against Krugman's (a reliable source). — goethean 22:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll let content stay in (for now). Here's an (brief and very preliminary) outline of how I see the issue at this point.

A reliable source for this we already have on this site for the inflation section:

Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit", ISBN 978-0-913966-70-9

I guess I'd better go find the specific sections soonish. I'll do it soonish then, and be OK with this entry being up for a while (I don't have consistent internet access right now).

In his work on credit, Mises says inflation distorts the production structure/production decisions and that it is only future price increases/credit crises that cause 'malinvestment'. In other words, the [Austrian definition] inflation creates a malinvestment-boom periods that collapses/unwinds when credit becomes scarce/expensive, aka the crisis/bust.

Krugman claims/implies that Austrian view of [AS def] inflation/ABCT claims that every 'credit injection' will result in a one-to-one increase in prices, but that's not what AS theory is at all.

There are a couple good contextual points here also (not sure if this counts as RS):

http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.com/2012/11/are-austrians-wrong.html

• "much of that new money has gone into government bonds, but we have to remember that much of what is raised through government bond auctions is used to pay off previous bonds...even Austrians know that the new money has to circulate before it affects asset prices.
• "the very fact that we have had massive malinvestments that cannot be supported by the market certainly is going to bring a downward effect on the economy and on prices."

So, yeah, in retrospect, I forgot about this site's (I suppose, good) obsession with citing reliable sources (it'd be cool if editors have a good understanding of the articles they edit, and that the folks wanting inclusion didn't go into Mises' stuff at all bothers me a bit). Byelf2007 (talk) 8 February 2013

Dear Byelf: I've again undone your deletion. Your last statement, "That's how this site works" amounts to a repudiation of WP policy. Please take a breather. If it would set your mind at ease, my personal suggestion would be to drop an email to Prof. Krugman, who is a very approachable guy, and discuss the matter with him. He loves talking Austrian stuff. You can reach him through the Times. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

""That's how this site works" amounts to a repudiation of WP policy." How so? The content stays in forever on a 7-5 vote no a 'blah blah blah'? At what point can it be taken out? Does it not matter if there's a new/not responded to objection? Byelf2007 (talk) 8 February 2013

i agree with you asking Krugman himself to settle the dispute as well as the probability he will respond, however, since he is not an Austrian economist, rather a critic, perhaps we have already lent him too many bytes here already? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Our WP dispute is resolved, decisively and definitively. I just think Byelf and PK can can have a chat and most likely Paul will set BY's mind at ease that he does in fact know what Mises said and why he wrote what he did. Remember, these newspaper blogs allow only a few hundred words to deal with a complex subject. Like him or not, Krugman is well-read and has no reason to misrepresent Mises. I think he and Byf could work it out. They might even become email buddies. SPECIFICO talk 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

not resolved just yet, Krugman is a critic of Mises, agreed? if so, his input here should be limited. Austrian economist should be the first choice as RS here, critics should be limited to a much smaller footprint. Krugman is mentioned as much as Friedman, one of the more noted Austrian economist. imagine how the cat article would read if dog were mentioned as much kitten? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

fyi, Friedman was not an Austrian School economist. He was a heckuva nice guy and a hoot at the dinner table, but in fact his work was/is widely despised among Austrians. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

agreed he was not, however since he was much closer than Krugman, and far more influential, i suggest the article is improperly weighted. On typical issues such as the minimum wage, tariffs, or government stimulus spending, Austrian and Chicago School economists can safely be lumped together as free market.[3] Krugman would fall outside this group, including him here for more than a few words is undue. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is appropriate to group AS and Chicago School in that way, and in fact I think it's very likely to lead to very serious and fundamental misunderstandings of both approaches. I also know that Bob agrees with me on that. I think the point of his piece was to reach out to readers who know Friedman but not the Austrians. Anyway, this is off-topic for the talk page. Edit warring is unacceptable and there's nothing more to say until we can get the article back to a constructive process. SPECIFICO talk 00:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

whether you agree or not, the fact remains Krugman is not free market, friedman and AS were/are. for someone opposed to edit-warring, you sure do revert often, perhaps it is time for you to take a break and let some new voices be heard? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion (or expertise) on this but I think tht folks are overstating the results of and overreaching from the RFC. It was ambiguous because, amongst other reasons, the material in question changed(between two Krugman pieces) midstream, and so people weren't even responding and making points about the main thing. I know that I stepped back after the insertion became a less problematic Krugman piece (which is not the one under discussion now). Also a non-admin close with 7 to 5 is not what I'd call a consensus, and certainly not a mandate, particularly with the other issues in mind. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Word. Byelf2007 (talk) 8 February 2013

I checked. Circa December 19th the Krugman piece which was in the article (and thus the subject of the RFC at that moment. ) was a completely different Krugman piece than folks are trying to keep in now. May I suggest that you discuss the merits of the issues in question instead of trying to overreach from the RFC which has a whole raft of issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The overreach from the very confused RFC (including that it was scrambled) is getting in the way of substantive discussion. If we can't stop this overreaching, it needs to get reopened form the non-admin close and completed and sorted out. North8000 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

North, I have twice investigated your concern and I am not able to understand it. Could you please cite the sequence and specifics of the text which you feel became confused, how it relates to Byelf's assertion that the Krugman article was not referring to Mises' view of inflation, and how you believe these two factors invalidated the consensus that was achieved in the RfC? Merely repeating statements of your concern is unlikely to be helpful at this juncture. Thank you for your participation. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The weaknesses/issues are:

1. Miscount (if counts mattered) NOLEANDER's final statement was they agreed with the solution I presented, yet was "counted" as being opposite that. So its actually 6 to 6
2. Even if it were 5 to 7 (which it isn't) that would not be considered a consensus
3. If you go by cases made, it tips ever farther away from "include", with 1-2 on the "include" side being just "votes"
4. Challenged non-admin close
5. Garbled. It was (implicitly) about the Krugman material included in the article, but that changed midstream (from One Krugman piece to another) midway through the RFC.) To see this, please note which Krugman piece was included circa December 19th and one will see that it is NOT the piece that folks are trying to put in now.

All that I'm suggesting is to start discussing this on its merits. North8000 (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

North, it would be helpful if you would kindly respond to the specific requests I made in my post immediately above yours. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Only one of the things in your question ("Could you please cite the sequence and specifics of the text which you feel became confused") relates to anything that I said (which is #5 of the 5 listed problems with the RFC) and I thought I generally answered that. If you look at the Krugman piece ;that was in the article coirca December 19th, you will see that it is not the piece that folks are trying to put in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello North. Here is the diff between the Dec 19 version and the current version [4]. There is no difference in the Krugman inflation criticism text. On the RfC thread I see no confusion concerning Krugman's statement and no support for Byelf's insistence that it be excluded on the basis of Byelf's opinion as to Krugman. The RfC thread and outcome are clear, despite whatever edits and reversions were going on in the articles or proposed alternatives being floated during the RfC discussion. There was a point at which a non-WP:RS opinion of a non-notable CNBC blogger was inserted in the article, perhaps this is what you are recalling. Clearly that did not belong in a Wikipedia article. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Protection

Note that I've just fully protected the article in response to the edit warring today. Please seek consensus for controversial changes here on the talk page, and keep our WP:NPOV guideline in mind. Also, you may want to consider WP:DR. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that edit warring continued after the protection expired, I've just reprotected for longer. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Bartlett bit

The Bartlett bit I recently took out is a terribly overly concise summary of ABCT that doesn't include a shred of critique. He doesn't even say it's wrong until the end, and, apparently, "it was rejected". It is, hands down, the worst 'critique' of ABCT I've ever seen, and I still have no idea what he means by double-secret inflation. I see no remotely plausible case for it's inclusion. Byelf2007 (talk) 8 February 2013

I'm amazed this got put back in. The burden is on those who want inclusion. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 February 2013

This should be obvious, but repeating that phrase over and over again like some kind of holy mantra doesn't make you right. It has been explained to you over and over again by numerous editors how the content is well-sourced and appropriate. The fact that you refuse to listen to arguments doesn't make you right. It makes you a disruptive editor. Since you have persisted after being warned several times, I take your comments as inviting a policy-based remedy to your disruptive behavior. — goethean 14:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

A Krugman-inflation issue

In it's current form, the page has the '350%/3%' bit which is not in the cited source. I'm also alarmed at how it seems to imply that Krugman is saying the Austrians are wrong because we haven't seen 350% inflation from money sitting in banks. So the page, as is, basically makes Krugman look like a total moron. Could we please take this out or re-write it (w/ a source) so that it doesn't make it look like Krugman is saying this? Byelf2007 (talk) 16 February 2013

There's currently consensus for the version that is in the article. Unless there develops an objectively demonstrated consensus to replace it with another version, the answer to your question is no. If you review the talk thread you'll see that the 350/3 bit was discussed. The numbers come from the clearly labeled graph which appears in the cited source. I don't find it constructive or relevant for you to suggest that anyone has made Krugman look like a total moron. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the graph has the data, and yes, the graph is discussed on the page, but where on the page does Krugman 'point out' that the 'MB has increased by 350%' while 'inflation has only increased by 3%'. I don't see that anywhere. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 February 2013

As always, if you disagree with the consensus, including the numbers, you are free to seek a specific alternative consensus. You've already stated various and sundry reasons why you don't like the consensus, but your only recourse is to demonstrate a specific new consensus of the editors here. SPECIFICO talk 20:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You are implying the existence of a non-existent consensus. Time to start talking about the merits of the issues at hand. North8000 (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Good day, Byf. I just re-read your comment above. It now strikes me you are asserting that Mises anticipated Keynes' liquidity trap -- money sitting idle and whatnot. Did you mean to say that? Mises wrote that money supply growth in excess of demand for circulating medium -- "increase in the quantity of money...that is not offset by a corresponding increase in the need for money" -- is what he calls inflation, not a liquidity trap. Anyway, if I understand it correctly your interpretation is novel. If you can convince an editorial board of it, then it will certainly be published and some future Wikipedia editor may cite your view. Meanwhile, to address your concern about the text, you might consider the following change to the consensus Krugman wording: delete "points out" and substitute "presents a chart showing." Personally I don't think it matters, but if that seems better to you, you could propose that change. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, strictly speaking, I don't believe in the notion of a 'liquidity trap', but if I understand you correctly, yes, my interpretation of Mises here is is what you're saying--idle money doesn't count as 'inflation', which is sort-of what the liquidity trap is, although that's, if I remember correctly, only the 'basic idea' of it.

Also, Mises had a number of views on economics that most currently Austrians don't believe in, so I'm really not sure if Mises' views on inflation = Austrian views on inflation. Of course, part of the problem here is that there isn't really a clear definition of "Austrian School" and there never has been, it being a term of historical convenience which has evolved over time because various persons subscribed to the old notions, added their own, and the adherents included them into the fold ('libertarianism' and 'existentialism' more or less suffer from the same problem).

Yes, the change on the chart thing sounds good.

I apologize to you for my lack of cool headedness throughout this ordeal. I also should have just poured through the relevant Mises text from the beginning, and I still haven't, but I reckoned, and still do, that the onus was on persons wanting inclusion to do that, until we (I think?) reached compromise on wording. Also, I find Mises very boring, and generally a pretty lousy economist (I have a much more positive opinion of Hayek and Rothbard).Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

half of the article is criticism?

to bring the article inline with policy i have prepared a version of the debated section here:[5]. this version includes six critics yet would still be largest criticism section in wp. please respond with support or reject first, then explain. please do not reference other editors or debates. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine, though I would start the methodoly section with something like, "Since the Austrian school uses deduction rather than modeling..." Kborer (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

agreed. my edit was simply trimming the existing text, your suggestion/addition would certainly improve the phrasing. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Kborer, please see the Methodology section, final paragraph. I think the criticism or negative characterization of all Austrian School economists work being only deductive is false. I would not state that as a fact, although some critics may wrongly have asserted it as a smear or criticized individual Austrians whose work is entirely deductive. SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

In the short timeframe, don't think it's going to be constructive to do a wholesale edit/rewrite on the Criticism section at the same time that the criticism content is being challenged. After things return to a normal editing environment here, we can certainly address improvements and/or slimming of the Criticism section. At this moment, I think the discussion is more likely to be constructive if it is as narrow and specific as possible. A section re-write would broaden, rather than focus, the discussion. Since the block is not going to be lifted until the edit war ends, that seems the top priority. Once things are back to normal, there is much other basic Austrian School content to be added and strengthened. I would place that at a higher priority after the unblock as well. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

there is no time limit or hurry. i am more interested to hear if you have a specific objection to my proposal based on policy. since i have included six different critics, which is more than any current wp criticism section, and since the section makes up too large of portion of an already over-sized article, we must follow policy and trim it regardless of which of the six is allowed to remain. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Darkstar: Not that the criticism section might not be improved, but I am concerned about your heading for this section. I count 46 lines of criticism text out of a total line count of 168 in the article. Please consider a more accurate heading. "half the article..." appears to be misleading. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

perhaps you should count the characters instead, which will address your concern. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Similar result. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

try again, you may have miscounted, even if it is 1/4 or 1/5, that would still be too much according to weight. six critics is plenty and each doesnt need a paragraph devoted to their rant Darkstar1st (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, would you like to go 1st trimming the section? your above comments sound like you are open to the idea, yet havent supported my sandbox proposal. is there anyone else with an objection to trimming the critic section some? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not characterize my view as "an objection to trimming the critic section." I had thought my view was clearly stated above. The priority must be first to be certain the edit warring will not recur, so that the article can be unprotected. After that, I believe the article is so incomplete and full of error (e.g. ABCT section) that we don't have a good statement of AS by which to test the relevance of any purported criticisms. We should not be piling on criticisms or deleting criticisms until we have a clear statement of Austrian School economics. Finally, instead of asking whether anybody rejects your proposal, you should also ask whether anyone favors it. In general, "why?" will also facilitate any discussion. Consensus on any prospective changes will not be achieved by a yes or no vote. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 14:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

i didnt. you are not opposed to trimming the section by your comments above as well as not supporting my sandbox version. since no one has expressed opposition to the edit, why do you think edit warring will occur from trimming this section? shouldn't those opposed to such an edit speak up now and we could discuss here instead of war? please reread my initial comment, i have ask if anyone supports the edit, so far only you have responded with not opposed. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, please be very careful not to misrepresent others' views. The edit war has nothing to do with your sandbox draft. The article is blocked, correction: protected due to Byelf's activity. Until he affirms that behavior is not going to recur, the block cannot be removed. The remainder of my thinking has been stated twice above. I have not reviewed your draft and I hope you will keep it until the article is in a coherent enough form so that we can evaluate criticisms vs. their associated content, if any, in the improved article. SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

either provide the exact text where i misrepresented your view, or withdraw the accusation please. a block will not prevent me from submitting my edit to an admin, which i plan to do soon. i will wait until you have had time to read my proposed edit and comment or not. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The WP:DRN (or who knows where else) is the place to go with this debate. It ain't no admin action issue. (Don't I know how they can turn out!) – S. Rich (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

When a view is in the minority, it's only natural that when considering people of similar notability, there will be more critics than advocates. The proper way to handle the material in the criticism section is to embed it into the appropriate sections in the article, to give them proper context, instead of quarantining them all to one section. That will also ensure that there are not too many repetitive arguments. Right now, part of the reason that the criticism section is long is that some editors here feel compelled to insert 'the Austrian viewpoint' following every criticism. Hopefully if this article is better organized, there will be less repetition, which will also make it shorter. LK (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The criticism section is awfully huge. And maybe a 1/3 of the criticisms listed are just vague uninformative swipes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I therefore support having a "Criticisms" article.

I believe your description applies, at least, to the Bartlett and Timberlake criticisms. If you'd like to take out more of the criticisms, I'd be interested in your reasons why (I currently would like to keep them all in, their being 'vague' or what not aside, because they are common criticisms). Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

Introduction could use some more details on what distinguishes the Austrian School

I think that before mentioning the contributions of the Austrian School, the intro should have a brief paragraph describing the school, its methodology and how it differs from the major schools of thought. Kborer (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Please review the Principles and Methodology sections and see whether they address your comment. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

3rd Opinion - Possible compromise

I recognize that there's a form of consensus for the Inflation section, but I can tell that there's still hard feelings and disagreement. To keep this from flaring up again, I propose the following edit. It's a small change, but I think it's meaningful. Please comment:

Inflation

Economist Paul Krugman has argued against [what he considers to be - ed.] 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".[96] Bruce Bartlett, senior economic policy adviser to U.S. Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush, voiced a similar criticism. In a discussion of the Austrian analysis of the Great Depression and of the recent recession, Bartlett wrote, "the Austrian school believes there was actually some sort of double-secret inflation because the money supply increased. They believe the same thing is happening right now...The Austrian analysis of the Great Depression and the recent recession are wrong, I think."[97]

Monetary theorist Richard Timberlake, an advocate of free banking, rejects von Mises' view that inflation must refer to an increase in the money supply. Timberlake notes that economists since the time of John Stuart Mill have recognized the distinction between increases in the money stock and increases in the general level of money prices. In Timberlake's view, statistical measurement of the aggregate price level is fundamental to a rigorous approach to monetary policy and provides the means to test Mises' theory of inflation against factual evidence. Timberlake says that Mises view has repeatedly been proven false.[98]

I think that this small change will satisfy every valid argument I've seen posted to date. To anticipate another argument, however, yes, I do think that Krugman's status as a Nobel-prize winning economist makes everything he says about economics notable, so that even if he said "Austrian economists have blue tongues", his statement deserves a place on this page - even if you can conclusively prove that what he said was both untrue and nonsensical.Bobzchemist (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

all of the above is true and well phrased, the problem is wp:weight. currently near half of the article is devoted to criticism as result of pov warring by those opposed to AS. compared to Keynesian economics where less than 1/10th is critique. i suggest the material would fit elsewhere, perhaps even a new article if the sources are so important and not already covered in wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Bartlett content still has not been (attempted to be) justified/my objections to it have not been responded to.

I don't see why Timberlake shouldn't just be an 'economist', nor do I see how it's relevant that he's an advocate of free banking.

Darkstar: Maybe it's time to have a 'Criticisms of Austrian Economics' article?

I'll have additional comments within a few days. byelf2007 (talk) 21 February 2013

One thing at a time, please, and then we can then get back to improving the rest of the article. Let's put Krugman to bed and then you can make proposals concerning other text. Please indicate on talk whether you now accept the current Krugman language and then everyone can respond to you on any points you wish to raise on the other inflation criticisms. SPECIFICO talk 05:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW I don't think it's going to be productive to start a "criticisms of Austrian" article before we have a good description of A.S. in this article. Both this one and the ABCT article still need a lot of work. SPECIFICO talk 05:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the "what he considers to be" is a fair edit. It makes it abundantly clear that it's his opinion. Since he is a Nobel Prize winning economist, his opinion is relevant. Even if Krugman is completely wrong and his view has nothing to do with Austrian Economics, his opinion is relevant and factually cited and merits inclusion. Editors have no burden of proof to anchor Krugman's opinion to other sources. Byelf has no grounds to use his own judgment in determining that Krugman is wrong, but Byelf is welcome to find some authoritative Austrian economists that say Krugman is not talking about Austrian Economics or is not accurately relating its tenets. This dispute actually caught Krugman's attention. See: Krugman has mentioned this dispute on his blogFarcaster (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"One thing at a time, please, and then we can then get back to improving the rest of the article. Let's put Krugman to bed and then you can make proposals concerning other text."

Your proposal included non-Krugman content (Bartlett and Timberlake), so that's why I had things to say about these other issues. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 February 2013

That's interesting. I think that the material there further reinforces that Krugman is a combatant in the debate, not a source regarding it. Of course articles can include statements by combatants, but to me those are less useful less credible/ less informative. I have lost track of / have not gotten deep in on what material is derived from which of his pieces. But I do opine that the Krugman piece that was in and was the subject of the FIRST HALF of the RFC looked more like a vague detail-free partisan "volley" than a thoughtful explanatory piece of writing. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about the combatant issue, although it's an interesting point, but I currently lean towards having a version of Krugman content in because of his notability, as long as we have the 'what he considers to be' bit, as per Farcaster's suggestion. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 February 2013

Byelf, "what he considers to be" has been considered at length and rejected by consensus here. The protection of the article will be ending soon and we need your assurance that you accept the current Krugman text, which is the consensus text. I did note your concern about the reference to the NYT graphic and suggested a minimal edit you may wish to propose to address that concern. Please give your assurance that the edit warring will not recur with respect to the consensus Krugman text. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

i dont see the consensus and more users are opposing the overuse of Krugman(see below) in an article about a school of economics much different from his own. while some criticism is helpful, this article is extremely weighted to a negative view of the AS. This specific edit is highly controversial and rejected by prominent economist who suggest his specif 2007-2012 inflation argument is flawed. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is no consensus on the issue and there never has been, and the vote was, at some point, on a proposal including 'blah blah blah'.

I do not understand why you're saying it's weighted to a negative view of AS though (I have worked hard on getting the 'Austrian response' to every single criticism, so...). In any case, whether or not it is true, it's not relevant here. If you have this objection to the article, please make a separate section on talk.

Which prominent economist? And just because a prominent economist 'rejects' the criticism doesn't alone determine our course of action here. Specifically, my problem with old-version of Krugman idea is that he isn't actually criticizing AS, and I'm not sure if by 'reject' you mean s/he disagrees with Krugman on the economics part or if s/he also/only rejects the notion that Krugman is criticizing AS. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

The home stretch

SPECIFICO, your proposal is now what exactly?

Is it this?

"Economist Paul Krugman has argued against what he considers to be Austrian views on inflation. Krugman presents a chart showing 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".[96] "

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Byelf2007#Additional_Paul_Krugman_Quote_on_Austrian_School_.2F_Inflation ]

I would also like to note that if Bartlett content is included, I believe it should be in a paragraph separate from Krugman content. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 February 2013

Byelf the current text in the protected article is the consensus text. I said on your talk page that you might consider proposing the substitution of "presents a chart which shows" for "points out" in the protected version. If you were to propose that change, and accept protected text after incorporating that modification, I would support it. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

To wit:

Economist Paul Krugman has argued against Austrian views on inflation. Krugman presents a chart which shows 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."

Krugman is a notable RS, yet how much coverage his opinions deserve is debatable and such opinions are strongly challenged by equally notable economist. [6] there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the measurement tools used by Krugman and his cohorts to measure inflation are as deeply flawed as their arguments. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

:::I don't know how to use Wikipedia like you, but in defense of Byefl2007 note this source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/48693368/Krugman_Isn039t_Quite_Right_About_Austrian_Economics . Paul Krugman is not interpreting the word inflation in the economic sense and is therefore engaging in a cherry picking logical fallacy or something else. Krugman is not attacking Austrian economic theory, therefore his criticism is invalid. VMav92 (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC) From the source: "In other words, Austrians will insist that any increase in the money supply is inflation—as a matter of definition. But Austrian economics does not insist that this kind of inflation necessarily results in higher prices.

What seems to have happened is that at least a few prominent pundits who consider themselves students of famous Austrian economists muddled these two concepts, thus concluding that Austrian-style inflation leads to price inflation." VMav92 (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Darkstar is correct--there is no consensus on this and there never has been. And it involved a proposal which included 'blah blah blah' in it.

Darkstar, equally notable economists? To Krugman? I suppose if you mean by wikipedia standards, yes, in terms of whether they are 'notable' or 'not', okay, if that's what you meant.

"Krugman is right that many self-styled Austrian economics mavens predicted high inflation. The Austrian model, however, does not." Word. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

:::Can this source then be quoted as a refutation of Krugman? Or can the Krugman quote be removed? It seems kind of stupid to have there given the fact he's not really criticizing Austrian economics. VMav92 (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Also this... "Economist Paul Krugman has argued against Austrian views on inflation." is from the article. The point is he *isn't* arguing against Austrian views on inflation. He's simply misinterpreting their views, perhaps because he hasn't done any research and his knowledge on the subject is 0. His articles seem to indicate as much anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VMav92 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A reply is needed from those who initially wanted to keep the Krugman piece there, if no refutation is provided I will take it as a sign that a new consensus of removal has been made. VMav92 (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Editors may review the talk page and its archive to see that the current Krugman text was reached by consensus and may review associated Wikipedia policy at WP:CON. It is a violation of WP policy to change the consensus text without explicit agreement here on a revised version. You may raise your concerns on talk and solicit discussion, but you may not violate policy. This constitutes the refutation of your statement above. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like you invented a brand new policy......where specifically is that? North8000 (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

it seems the non-consensus of now would eclipse the consensus of the past? I suggest the text allotted to Krugman here and much of the criticism section is undue and should be trimmed. most wp articles with a criticism section mention 1 or 2 critics, the sandbox version i prepared has 6, yet that still has no support, why? [7] Darkstar1st (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, SPECIFICO, it's time for some tough love.

There has never been consensus. What is consensus to you? WHY do you think there has been? Why have you not told us? And if there was, why would it matter when the proposal said "blah blah blah" in it? Why have you repeatedly asserted there was consensus despite multiple persons pointing out there clearly never has been and ignored my point about the inadmissability of a 'proposal' with "blah blah blah" in it?

This is getting very old.

And if consensus to you is being outvoted, it would appear you're being outvoted 3 to 1. And the burden has always been on those wanting inclusion of content, not exclusion of content.

Please follow site protocol and address what we say without just repeating what you already said which we actually responded to, or stop posting on this issue. Thanks. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

Darkstar, I don't want any (old version) criticisms/responses taken out. I believe they are all important. What's wrong with solving this issue by making a Criticisms of AS article? Then we have the criticisms section just have a sentence which distills the criticisms or primary criticisms with a link the "Criticisms" article. There are already a lot of "Criticisms of" articles for a lot of political stuff ( and one (just one, but it sets a precedent) for an economics topic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_neoclassical_economics ). Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. — goethean 17:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. That was my point. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

Byelf, perhaps you would be willing to show us an example of how you envision the critism section, or perhaps endorse mine which neither adds or removes rs, just trims some of the bloat [8].Darkstar1st (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

K. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

What's wrong with solving this issue by making a Criticisms of AS article? Then we have the criticisms section just have a sentence which distills the criticisms or primary criticisms with a link the "Criticisms" article.

The criticisms wuold not be reduced to a single sentence It could be reduced to a few paragraphs, however. See Wikipedia:Summary style, which states:

Each subtopic or child article is an encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article.

— goethean 18:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm just accustomed to seeing the blurbs in a criticisms section that has a link to the relevant criticisms article being one sentence. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

From your sudden enthusiasm, I get the sense that this is a strategy to remove Krugman's name from the article. If Krugman is one of the most prominent critics of the Austrian School, his name should remain in the summary. — goethean 18:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::::Goethean as I pointed out earlier, he's not a prominent critic of the Austrian school. Mainly because he doesn't understand the Austrian school. I'm not in favour of the Austrian school either, I'm currently studying a Bachelor of Economics, the point of the matter is his criticism isn't necessary or true, read here; http://www.cnbc.com/id/48693368/Krugman_Isn039t_Quite_Right_About_Austrian_Economics . 118.208.24.144 (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC) ::::::::Further, from a link provided by Byelf. "As Murray Rothbard points out in his book, America's Great Depression, the amount of money in circulation during the 1920s grew, and he terms that as "inflation." However, according to the Consumer Price Index of that time, consumer prices fell by roughly one percent a year, which the late Jude Wanniski used as "proof" that Rothbard was wrong when he claimed that the 20s was an inflationary period. What we witnessed was an apples-and-oranges kind of comparison, as most people (including most economists) generally are used to defining inflation as an increase in the government's CPI, but the Austrians would say that changes in the CPI would be the result of inflation and in our case, the result of the monetary policies of the Fed." ... "apples-and-oranges kind of comparision". This is what Krugman is doing, and it's borderline slanderous but definitely ignorant. VMav92 (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Goethean, I don't suppose there is any need for such speculation.

Darkstar complained about the Criticisms section being too long.

"If Krugman is one of the most prominent critics of the Austrian School, his name should remain in the summary." I suppose so.

Again, I don't have a problem with the relevant Krugman content in the article, I just want to make sure we do not imply/state he critiqued AS. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

"he's not a prominent critic of the Austrian school. Mainly because he doesn't understand the Austrian school." Yes, 118.208.24.144/VMav92, anyone who looks into it will quickly discover Krugman repeatedly misrepresents AS, either because he hasn't bothered to learn it/keep up to date with the various AS responses, or because he understands he can keep getting away with this for the time being, however, I don't see how that precludes him being one of AS's most notable critics. That he certainly is. He's easily one of the most well-known and well-read modern economists in America today and frequently 'criticizes' AS.

In my opinion, as long as do not imply/state he critiqued AS, I believe it is notable enough for inclusion, or, at least, it may be notable enough. It's definitely not nearly as notable a 'criticism' as the others, most of which are actual criticisms of AS, the issue of their validity aside.

We'd need to come up with some sort of understandable standard for when a criticism (being intellectually honest or not) is notable enough. I'm not sure what that would be. This particular Krugman issue is, I believe, a borderline case, so I could go either way on whether or not the relevant Krugman content should be included at all (and there's certainly no 'consensus' issue to contend with, adament support for some version of inclusion apparently only coming from SPECIFICO, with at least 3 editors being skeptical). Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

Byelf, I'm going to put this as nicely as I can. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, esp. WP:V. Your personal feelings about Krugman are perfectly irrelevant to this article. What is relevant are reliable sources. Your personal musings on Krugman are off-topic can be removed from this page per WP:TALK. Krugman is a reliable source for his opinions which are notable. That is why he stays. Your yammerings to the contrary are not policy based and can be ignored completely. — goethean 14:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::Sounds like Krugman isn't the only one who can't read a justified counter argument. SPECIFICO and Goethean, his criticism shouldn't be there. Regardless of whether he is a prominent criticizer or not. Just in the same way you wouldn't put the Koch brothers on a criticism page about global warming. VMav92 (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This is getting very old. Again, my argument is that his criticism is not actually a criticism of AS. If you want to include content of 'his view/interpretation of AS', then maybe it should stay in, although the 'combatant' issue is relevant and therefore needs to be discussed. You're not actually advocating that. You just keep asseting "Well, he's notable, so his criticism must be criticism of AS regardless of what it is". If you're so certain you're correct on this issue, why do you repeatedly not address this argument? Byelf2007 (talk) 4 March 2013

WP:V. Look into it. — goethean 16:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Then you've broken this part; " Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." because Krugman's criticism is neither true nor verifiable. As such his comment will be removed. VMav92 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Relevant links

http://ryansreviewdaily.com/2012/11/30/374/ http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20130122/BLOG09/130129993 http://www.cnbc.com/id/48693368/Krugman_Isn039t_Quite_Right_About_Austrian_Economics http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.com/2013/02/austrians-and-predicted-inflation-my.html Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

Duplicate Photos

Does the same photo of Israel Kirzner really need to appear twice in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.229.117 (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

== Irrelevant and bizarre Milton F Quote ==

As part of "empirical objections" to ABCT, someone has added an MF quote where (basically) MF says he doesn't like the normative conclusions of ABCT. It has nothing whatever to do with his empirical analysis. I've been bold and deleted it as it is irrelevant to the topic and confusing. The reference to his empirical study (of course) stays and is still there. The fact that he wanted "to do something" to fix depressions has nothing to do with this topic. Who included this irrelevant quote I wonder? - WeOweItToOurselves (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FRB123 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 13 September 2012‎ (UTC)

Business Cycle paragraphs incorrectly attributed to Human Action p.572

Here is the deleted text. The exposition is garbled and much of it incorrect. It does not reflect the cited source, Human Action p.572 and the second attribution, to Theory of Money and Credit does not specify the content.

Austrians argue that capital goods industries will find that their investments have been in error; what they thought was profitable fails for lack of demand by their entrepreneurial customers. Higher orders of production will have turned out to be wasteful, and the malinvestment must be liquidated. In other words, the particular "types" of investments made during the monetary boom were inappropriate and "wrong" from the perspective of the long-term financial sustainability of the market because the price signals stimulating the investment were distorted by fractional reserve banking's recursive lending "ballooning" the pricing structure in various capital markets. This notion depends on the "heterogeneity of capital", where Austrians emphasize that the macroeconomic "total" of investment does not adequately capture whether this investment is genuinely sustainable or productive due to the inability of the raw numbers to reveal the particular investment activities being undertaken; the inherent inability of the numbers to reveal whether these particular investment activities were appropriate and economically sustainable given people's real preferences.

A boom taking place under these circumstances is therefore a period of wasteful malinvestment, a "false boom" where the particular kinds of investments undertaken during the period of fiat money expansion are revealed to lead nowhere but to insolvency and unsustainability. It is the time when errors are made, when speculative borrowing has driven up prices for assets and capital to unsustainable levels, due to low interest rates "artificially" increasing the money supply and triggering an unsustainable injection of fiat money "funds" available for investment into the system, thereby tampering with the complex pricing mechanism of the free market. "Real" savings would have required higher interest rates to encourage depositors to save their money in term deposits to invest in longer term projects under a stable money supply. According to Mises's work, the artificial stimulus caused by bank-created credit causes a generalized speculative investment bubble, not justified by the long-term structure of the market. Mises further argues that a "crisis" (or "credit crunch") arrives when the consumers come to reestablish their desired allocation of saving and consumption at prevailing interest rates.

Austrians argue that continually expanding bank credit can keep the borrowers one step ahead of consumer retribution (with the help of successively lower interest rates from the central bank). In the theory, this postpones the "day of reckoning" and defers the collapse of unsustainably inflated asset prices. Furthermore, the monetary boom ends when bank credit expansion stops (when no further investments can be found which provide adequate returns for speculative borrowers at prevailing interest rates). They further argue that the longer the "false" monetary boom goes on, the bigger and more speculative the borrowing, the more wasteful the errors committed and the longer and more severe will be the necessary bankruptcies, foreclosures, and depression readjustment.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 20:38, 18 January 2013‎ (UTC)

Proposal changes to lede and criticisms section

Criticisms section is changed to:

" Many economists are critical of the current-day Austrian School and consider its rejection of econometrics, experimental economics and aggregate macroeconomic analysis to be outside of mainstream economic theory, or "heterodox". "

In other words, paragraph 3 of the lede, minus "Austrians are in turn critical of mainstream", which I do not believe would be relevant for the short blurb after the link to the "Criticisms" article. Then there's a link to the "Criticisms of AS" article, which would consider of a version of the older/current criticisms section.

And, ???perhaps???, Paragraph 3 of lede is changed to:

" Many economists are critical of the current-day Austrian School and consider it to be to be outside of mainstream economic theory, or "heterodox". Austrians are likewise critical of mainstream economics. Although the Austrian School has been considered heterodox since the late 1930s, it began to attract renewed academic and public interest starting in the 1970s. "

In other words, the specific objections are taken out (I reckon it's enough that people understand this in the lede and get more info in the criticisms section if they're interested, and then get still more if the go to the "Criticisms" article). Although perhaps that's a bad idea and we should have it in the lede, but I feel iffy about just rehashing the info in the Criticisms section (it would seem weird to me for it just to say 'there's a lot of criticisms of it from the mainstream economists' and leave it at that), though I suppose it wouldn't be too weird to repeat info, so I don't particularly care about a condordant lede change. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

(inserted later) I'm going to guess that what they meant was something that really explains what the Austrian School is for an average reader, and since this article doesn't do that, they are thinking that describing what is distinctive about it might help. I'm not a dummy (published stuff that I wrote in other technical fields gets cited by other in Wikipedia, and people ask me to read and decode technical stuff for them) but after several reads of this article I have not gained any understanding of what Austrian School is. Although it did improve the last time I said this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

North, I care about this article a lot. Could you please be more specific about how you've not gained any understanding of AS (I assume you came in with some knowledge of it already?)? I would like to improve this article. The only thing I can really think of would be to add a section of internal theoretical disputes/factions within AS.

Yeah, I agree the article used to suck, but is there a particular thing about it which ain't working for ya? I like improving this article! Thanks. Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

Well, I figure that if I can get ALL of the editors here pissed at ME, then it might cool down the dispute between themselves.  :-)  :-)

I came in with zero knowledge of what Austrian School is, and after reading this article several times, I still have pretty much zero understanding of what the Austrian School is. This article is lacking the statements that say and explain what the main points of Austrian School are, identified as such. It also relies on hunts through other articles (internal links) to state/explain the core items if this topic, instead of doing so here. This article needs a dummy-on-the-topic to understand the issues, and I currently meet the dummy-on-the-topic requirement.  :-) North8000 (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

alt proposal

edit down the current criticism section to the following

General criticisms

Some economists have argued that Austrians are often averse to the use of mathematics and statistics in economics.[83] Economist Bryan Caplan argues that Austrians have often misunderstood modern economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it. For example, many Austrians object to the use of cardinal utility in microeconomic theory; however, microeconomic theorists go to great pains to show that their results hold for all strictly monotonic transformations of utility, and so are true for purely ordinal preferences.[84][85] Economist Paul Krugman has stated that because Austrians do not use "explicit models" they are unaware of holes in their own thinking.[86] Economist Benjamin Klein has criticized the economic methodological work of Austrian economist Israel M. Kirzner. While praising Kirzner for highlighting shortcomings in traditional methodology, Klein argued that Kirzner did not provide a viable alternative for economic methodology.[87] Economist Jeffrey Sachs argues that among developed countries, those with high rates of taxation and high social welfare spending perform better on most measures of economic performance compared to countries with low rates of taxation and low social outlays. He concludes that Friedrich Hayek was wrong to argue that high levels of government spending harms an economy, and "a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness."[88] Austrian economist Sudha Shenoy responded by arguing that countries with large public sectors have grown more slowly.[89]

Methodology

Critics generally argue that Austrian economics lacks scientific rigor and rejects scientific methods and the use of empirical data in modelling economic behavior.[10][83][90] Some economists describe Austrian methodology as being a priori or non-empirical.[10][25][83][91] Economist Mark Blaug has criticized over-reliance on methodological individualism, arguing it would rule out all macroeconomic propositions that cannot be reduced to microeconomic ones, and hence reject almost the whole of received macroeconomics.[92] Economist Thomas Mayer has stated that Austrians advocate a rejection of the scientific method which involves the development of empirically falsifiable theories.[90][91]

Monetary theorist Richard Timberlake, an advocate of free banking, rejects von Mises' view that inflation must refer to an increase in the money supply. Timberlake notes that economists since the time of John Stuart Mill have recognized the distinction between increases in the money stock and increases in the general level of money prices. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Responses

I oppose this proposal. I definitely want the Bartlett stuff out, and probably the Timberlake thing also (which appears to be a semantic criticism and/or misreading or Mises), and I'm about 50/50 on the Krugman thing.

But you want to cut out a lot of stuff. I don't see why we should. I believe the rest is all important and deserves to stay in. I believe the sensible solution would be to create a "Criticisms article". Byelf2007 (talk) 1 March 2013

the other stuff is important, and would be perfect in a criticism article, but not here. too much of the current article is dedicated to opinions about AS rather than explaining the concept and it is about twice the length as need be. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Facepalm* I'm sorry. I didn't get it (I thought you were saying you wanted other content to be taken out of the entire site). Sure, this looks fine. Support Byelf2007 (talk) 4 March 2013

I agree that having a criticisms article may be appropriate. However, I'ld like to remind everyone that this does not mean that the main article should then be whitewashed of all criticisms. (Nor does it mean that criticism articles get to be mean and nasty in a way unacceptable in the parent article.) Policy is that articles and sub articles should present the same point of view on a subject (NPOV, with due weight reflecting scholarly consensus), and that the sub-article merely expands on a topic that is covered in the main article, in the same style and manner, and from the same viewpoint. This means that discussions of the Misean views of inflation should continue to reflect that almost all economists reject his view, etc. It may be a better idea to move all so called 'criticisms' into their relevant sections, and to make sub-articles based on topic (e.g. a methodology article). LK (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

LK, does that mean you support my proposal above as all 6 economist critics are included? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

LK, do you intend to move the criticisms into their sections? if not, would you oppose me trimming some of the excess as shown above? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't oppose moving stuff around, including moving into a criticisms article, as long as a decent summary is left. But I would oppose cuts that throw material away. As far as I can tell, everything there now is notable and should be in Wikipedia somewhere in an article related to Austrian school. LK (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please make the moves you wish now, i will delay my edit. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Austrian School:criticisms vs. their associated content

Have you had time to make this evaluation, if so, have you reviewed my proposed edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello I am moving this to the article talk page and will reply there. SPECIFICO talk 21:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What I said above was that I think we should first get the article in better shape before we evaluate the criticism text. The current condition of the article is rather weak. In particular the ABCT text is garbled and not well-sourced. The article does not currently trace the various threads of 20th-21st Century thought that originate in the first and second generation Austrians and does not discuss the current diversity of thought among those who call themselves, or can be traced to, the Austrian School. We should also eventually find well-sourced material about at least three current groups of Austrians: Those who are assimilated into conventional academia, those who affiliate primarily with the Cato Inst. and those who hang their muhlbauers at the Mises Institute. I didn't say and do not think that the exercise of evaluation for the purpose of a large-scale rewrite would be fruitful at this time. I don't think that it would be productive to relocate any of the criticism content either within or to outside this article at the current time. I appreciate your enthusiasm for such a project, but I have not seen consensus supporting such a project at this time. I know that you've mentioned the idea several times, but no other editors have responded with enthusiasm, let alone with the kind of discussion that must precede such a large rewrite of content already agreed on talk and properly sourced. Please consider whether you may be projecting some of your own enthusiasm on others here. A few, like myself, have responded to you by saying that we have no objection in principal to a redistribution of the criticism content. Like me, others have voiced our concern that we not discard or diminish the current "criticism" content without specific cause and without prior discussion. But who has said he wants or is ready to participate in a big redistribution of content now?

If you have not recently reviewed the extensive archives here, I suggest you have a fresh look at them. Much of the criticism content has been discussed extensively and sometimes contentiously. It would not be appropriate to do an extensive re-arrangement or reduction of it without coming to a new consensus. I do hope it need not be repeated that this is especially important with respect to the material already inserted as the result of prior discussion and consensus. I'm sure I have said this before, but it is worth emphasizing that Austrian School economics is a body of theorical investigation, and it shares an interest in truth with all other "schools" of economics. The Austrian School is not an ideology and it is not a political movement. See whether you can get a copy of this article by a great Austrian Economist and have a look. It's not 'us against them.' People like Caplan and Krugman help advance scholarship by pointing out the areas of theory that need clarification and improvement. Science is a cooperative effort.

Please continue to post your ideas on talk, including specific drafts or proposed edits, but please do not remove any of the content previously resolved on talk prior to getting an explicit consensus for your replacement version here on talk. My main focus is on how to improve the ABCT section. Maybe you will consider refocusing your efforts in the near- to intermediate- term on that section or on other ways to improve the basic exposition of of Austrian School for readers who come here. SPECIFICO talk 21:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)