Talk:Austrian business cycle theory/Archives/2012/October

This article reeks

This article positively reeks of government intervention. The Austrian Business Cycle Theory can be very clearly and concisely stated, in a step by step fashion, in a couple of paragraphs. As it stands now, it is poorly written, confusing, full of weasel wording, POV pushing, un-encyclopedic, and factually incorrect. I, for one, am quite sure this is by design. 76.170.147.37 (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

(a) Explain how it's too long/confusing/cumbersome. (b) Explain how it is full of weasel wording (c) Explain how it is full of POV pushing (d) Explain how it has factual errors (e) Explain in some level of detail what you see as being preferable changes and why. Byelf2007 (talk) 20 September 2012

Read the article. Virtually every line in the exposition has distracting disqualifiers pounded into it. These are POV, and should be entirely reserved for a "Criticism" section. The word "Assertions" is not neutral, "Tenets", "Facets", "Holdings" or something similar would more encyclopedic.

The exposition should begin by citing Rothbard on what ABCT seeks to explain, i.e. the cluster of entrepreneurial error, and the concentration of the error in interest sensitive areas like producer goods and real estate.

Then the exposition should proceed like: orders of production, higher orders are more interest sensitive, consumer time preference sets free-market interest rate, interest rate as price signal to investors, credit expansion artificially lowers interest rate causing over-investment into producer goods and under-investment in consumer goods, resources needed to complete producer projects have already been consumed, the realization of entrepreneurial error, liquidation. 76.170.147.37 (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"Virtually every line in the exposition has distracting disqualifiers". I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could you please elaborate?

"The word "Assertions" is not neutral, "Tenets", "Facets", "Holdings" or something similar would more encyclopedic." I have no problem with this.

"The exposition should begin by citing Rothbard..." "Then the exposition should proceed like..." Sounds good. Byelf2007 (talk) 27 September 2012

ABCT is a small minority view. A neutrally written article would not state the theory, and the viewpoint of it's proponents, as fact. Please keep this in mind when editing. LK (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The existence of the ABCT is a fact. That the ABCT has tenets is also a fact. The referenced restatement of those tenets would be thus be factual. Your claim that ABCT is "a small minority view" is unsourced, speculative and irrelevant. Either ABCT is noteworthy enough to deserve an article, or else it isn't. If it is, the article should be encyclopedic and neutral. Also, "it's" is a contraction of "it is". Please keep this in mind while editing. 76.93.47.72 (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. Read WP:FRINGE, which is a guideline about how to deal with minority views. LK (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)