Talk:Austrian business cycle theory/Archives/2008/September

Cleaner and meaner

I'd been meaning to get to this for a while. I finally got my teeth into this and chewed away for awhile. I hope you agree it's cleaner and sharper now, with an excellent, comprehensive, topical reference from Polliet included for good measure. This reference is the best "condensed" summation of ABCT I have found - other than this even better, wittier, pithier piece by the Famous Mogambo Guru. I'd add The Mogambo in, but I feel sure it would be deleted by WP guardians on the basis of The Mogambo not being a "reliable" source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetThemMintPaper (talk • contribs) 10:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time. It is a definite improvement. It's a tough theory to encapsulate in a concise way. --RayBirks (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good job!

This article was mentioned in this news article: [1] (MSNBC). DickClarkMises (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Origins & Questions sections need to be wikified

The first half of the article needs to be rewritten and wikified.

The origins section is entirely a block quote from Roger Garrison. This raises numerous issues WP:SOAP, WP:NOTMIRROR, WP:NPV and copyright issues as well.

Leading questions as in the Questions section also aren't appropriate, as wikipedia is not a textbook, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, and it potentially violates NPV as well.

Also, care should be taken not to use 'the encyclopedic voice' when stating the Austrian viewpoint. ie. preface all non-mainstream views with 'austrian economic theorists state', 'according to austrian economic theory', etc. If possible, opposing viewpoints should be integrated into the text, so that it doesn't read as if wikipedia is endorsing a particular point of view.

I suggest Fairtax as a reference. It's an excellent article that has taken care to be NPV on a very contentious issue.

lk (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on, let's be reasonable. A couple of points: (1) Many times the article states "Austrian theorists believe" or "Austrian theorists state...". Saying this over and over in an article on ABCT would be repetitive (bordering on ridiculous) (2) This isn't contentious - the article accurately reflects the references (have you read the refs?). The theory itself is the theory. Whether it's right or not (in an absolute sense) is completely irrelevant to this page. If you want to work on business cycles please feel free. That page is a mess! It looks like someone vomited out the page. Given the unmitigated disaster that is business cycles, your comments on this page are...how should I put this...a little on the "nit picky" side. The quote is necessary to show the background. It's not even close to a copyright violation given it's not a "substantial" copy. I'd leave it, and encourage you to go to business cycles and make sure that's kept "mainstream". Austrianism has been so brutalized on WP before it's clear there's no way of making it "mainstream". Other than mutilating it. The theory is what it is. Read the refs before making judgments. Add all you want on the "other views" at the bottom of the page (I encourage neo-Keynesians in particular to add their stuff at the end, especially on the "paradox of thrift"). But please don't try to amend yourself. Somehow I don't think it will work. - LetThemMintPaper (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In reply to (1) I agree that in many places, the article does preface with "Austrian theorists state...". I added some of these myself. However, articles must be careful about stating things in the encyclopedic voice, unless they are undisputed facts. Thus trumps considerations of repetitiveness. As for (2), one can argue that the fairtax is what it is as well. However, this article does not just descibe the pure theory, it relates it to the real world. And ABCT purports to describe how the real world functions. This makes it contentious. As for 'Origins', having a section that is entirely a quote does not make a good article. I suggest that you read the WP:QUOTE on this issue. Lastly, I hope you're not suggesting that you object to my making edits to the page. Remember WP:OWN. lk (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're curiously coy about business cycles. No comment on that I see. Too shy to admit it's currently garbage? Admittedly the fact that business cycles is currently a dog's breakfast does not mean your criticisms here are invalid. I just think you should prioritize your life and if you're interested in this topic, WP desperately needs someone (knowledgeable?) to work on business cycles. You seem to be implying you know your stuff on the topic, so I encourage you to start on that page. I myself have no interest in "improving" mainstream economics or neo-Keynesian economics or business cycles as I had to read that rubbish for my degree and have no interest re-visiting the land of the living dead. - LetThemMintPaper (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably no use asking, but do try to be civil. I have been cleaning up econ articles for the last year, thanks for asking, but given the scope of wikipedia, one cannot expect to fix all articles on topics that one has knowledge off. I assume you've had a couple of econ classes in college. That does not make you an expert on the subject. Wikipedia is not supposed to be balkanized into various parts where various independent groups write contradictory articles, it supposed to reflect the current scientific consensus on an issue, as represented by the latest academic peer-refereed writings on the issue. Keep in mind WP:SOAP and WP:OWN. lk (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you read through WP:NPV. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect current scientific consensus, as reflected by peer-reviewed non-self-published articles (see WP:SOURCES). This is true in both articles about mainstream theories and fringe theories. This isn't my opinion on how things should be, they are generally accepted guidelines on what Wikipedia should look like. But relax, all I'm suggesting is that the first 2 sections need to be wikified. lk (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the section title to indicate that the entire section is the assertions of the theory. This is a much cleaner way of attributing the several assertions to the ABCT rather than to the article itself. The repeated use of "Austrian theorists believe" and "Austrian theorists state..." is awkward, annoying, and distracting. Dscotese (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Origin of central banks and recessions

The United States didn't really have a central bank until the Federal Reserve around 1913. Yet there were vicious recessions and bubbles prior to then (see list of recessions in the United States). I'm guessing that Mises was aware of this, and had some sort of explanation. That would make this current article's lead misleading. But maybe he didn't? Can anyone shed some light on this issue? II | (t - c) 03:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if Mises himself was aware of the particulars of banking history in the United States. After arriving in the U.S. from Europe in 1940 at the age of 59, his first order of business was to write Human Action in English (based on a similar earlier German work) for its eventual publication in 1949. By then his student Murray Rothbard took on the task of studying American banking. His The Panic of 1819, America's Great Depression, and History of Money and Banking in the United States should explain just about everything you want to know. Part One of this last work has around 120 pages about the pre-Fed U.S. banking system, including the Bank of North America and the First and Second Banks of the United States, all of which functioned as early versions of central banks. The full PDF text of this last work is found here: http://www.mises.org/Books/historyofmoney.pdf . --RayBirks (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks so much for the prompt reply. I'm not sure I agree that those early banks would qualify as central banks. Did they act as lenders of last resort? Did they have exclusive control over the creation of banknotes? Were they able to flex the money supply and affect interest rates? I read a book recently which argued that they should not be considered central banks (Kicking Away the Ladder by Ha-Joon Chang). Without the ability to lower interest rates through artificially increased money supply, it seems as if these banks cannot be considered central banks for the purposes of Austrian theory. Thus a vicious business cycle existed before the central banks ... and it is a fact that recessions have become less common in the 20th century. I'll take a look at Rothbard's book, but I would appreciate it if you could give me a quick nutshell Austrian rebuttal. You know that Friedman and Bernanke believe that the Great Depression was caused the government not increasing (temporarily) the money supply enough in the wake of the stock market crash?

Anyway, the Tulip mania bubble certainly precedes central banking. Bubbles just happen. II | (t - c) 05:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Its arguable if Tulip Mania actually was a significant bubble, but that's neither here nor there. I've written up a bit about crashes pre-WWII, and also added cites for economists who state that cycles damped down after central banks started getting involved.lk (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your sources don't directly make the point, meaning that you've synthesized to do original research. I'm not going to take 'em out, but it would be much better to find someone directly targeting the Austrian cycle with this point. II | (t - c) 07:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the statement to make it clearer what the references do and don't say. I think this makes it one of the better cited statements in the article. lk (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I checked your sources and they don't talk about the Austrian school. That means that you can't use them to criticize the Austrian school without breaking WP:OR. -- Vision Thing -- 18:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not a reasonable argument. This is like reverting citations about satellites and circumnavigations on a page about flat earth theory because the writers did not directly try to refute the flat earth question. However they directly address the topic of whether the earth is round. Similarly, I believe this page can cite articles that are about Business Cycles, they do not have to be directly arguing against the Austrian business cycle theory. lk (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Where in the "Flat earth" do you see a discussion about satellites and circumnavigations? WP:OR is clear on this: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." Subject of this article is "Austrian Business Cycle Theory" and you sources are not talking about it. -- Vision Thing -- 16:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Keeping here until consensus is reached over at WP:OR/N

Visionthing, do try to be civil. You edit summary is impolite. As you know, consensus was reached, unfortunately, it broke again as new editors weighed in. lk (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Keeping edit here until consensus is reached:

The Austrian school's theory claims that business cycles are caused by central banks' manipulation of the money supply. However, researchers have found that economies have experienced less severe boom-bust cycles after World War II, since central banks have started using monetary policy to stabilize economies.

No offense, but your claim of consensus was pretty premature. I said it was original research; Doug Weller didn't really come down on any side, and Eubulides said it wasn't original research. I don't see how you got consensus out of that. Anyway, have you read the critiques of all the mainstream figures we've found? I haven't. That would be the best place to start. My Review of Austrian Economics subscription only goes back to 1997, so I haven't seen that full Tullock paper. If none of these guys mention this critique, you should perhaps wonder whether it is a fair criticism. II | (t - c) 03:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Tullock paper is available online. I've read the first few pages - seems pretty legit. (I didn't read the back and forth though.) Also Tullock is a very credible figure, have a look at his page on Wikipedia - very impressive. lk (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is the paper available online? As far as Tullock, I'm not really impressed. He does not have a PhD in economics, just a JD. That's an advantage and a disadvantage. But the main thing is that he hasn't intensively studied macroeconomics. He's a public choice guy. Not the best guy to be commenting on this issue. I pointed to him because he's doing a scholarly critique. David Laidler is perhaps the most well-informed commenter, but he doesn't really come down negatively on the Austrian theory per se, and mainly discusses it in the historical context without aiming to critique it. 04:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I found Tullock's paper from the journal website, or maybe SSRN or something like that. It's possible that it's only accessible from a university network that has paid for access. From what I remember the article used the same type of argumentation as is found in the better Austrian papers. Verbal logic, but clean and straightforward. lk (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppeting through anonymous IPs

The use of anonymous IP socks to avoid bans and to back up each others arguments and revert avoiding 3RR is clearly prohibited. Edits by anonymous IPs that suddenly show up on this page evidencing knowledge of the arguments here and Wikipedia in general is prima facie evidence of sock puppetry. Edits by such socks are prima facie unwanted, as such, any user may revert these additions (see WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits). lk (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)