Talk:Austrian school of economics/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Schiff

I see that there was already a discussion about Schiff with lot of different opinions. Reason why I think that Schiff shouldn't be mentioned is because there is no source that establishes his relevance to the Austrian School. From what I can tell he is just some random investor who says he is a supporter of the Austrian School. That is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't merit a inclusion in this general article. -- Vision Thing -- 19:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with VisionThing. As has been explained above, the "criticisms" have been very weakly sourced indeed, both with regards to the Mises-bit (now removed) and Schiff. First it was claimed mainstream economists had criticized the Austrian School for its description of financial crises. No such criticism was leveled in the article, nor was it written by economists. I actually hadn't thought of the fact that the article actually doesn't claim Schiff to be an Austrian. I've been against the inclusion from the very beginning. Misessus (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Also added Vedder's and Galloway's article on the 1946 depression prediction. This is arguably the most important case of mainstream getting it wrong, which supports its inclusion in this section of the article. Vedder's and Galloway's credentials as historians can hardly be disputed.Misessus (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Objection: "Schiff shouldn't be mentioned is because there is no source that establishes his relevance to the Austrian School."
Citation: "Several of the commentators (Schiff and Richebächer) adhere to the ‘Austrian School’ in economics,

which means that they emphasize savings, production (not consumption) and real capital formation as the basis of sustainable economic growth."[1]159.119.153.72 (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Krugman blog as source

Srich reverted my removal here, and possibly quite rightly. I've always been confused about that one. Krugman's blog appears to be very personal, full of offhand bits that don't seem likely to be under editorial control. But I don't actually have any idea if they are. Since I'm confused about that, and similar blogs, I've asked for suggestions at the reliable sources noticeboard. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is an edit which can properly set forth Krugman's opinion (main thing is that he is stating an opinion and this clarifies as much):
Paul Krugman's opinion is that because Austrians do not use "explicit models" they are unaware of holes in their own thinking.[2]
I'll add that we have to accept at face value that NYT exercises editorial control over these blogs. We are not looking at whether they contain truth. --S. Rich (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess there's three things to question about this particular source.
  1. Is Krugman's blog a WP:RS? I'm interested in that question more generally, beyond how it applies here. I'm willing to wait and see what happens at WP:RSN to better form my feelings about that.
  2. Is it a good source> Krugman's prominence could possibly make it so, but it still seems very offhand, a couple paragraphs of semi-thinking, so I wouldn't think of it as a good source to use in this article.
  3. Does this particular blog say what the WP article says it says? (see this reversion). Krugman clearly says at the bottom of that blog post "the Austrian abhorrence of explicit models, even for the purposes of clarifying thought, leaves them unaware of the holes in their account" which closely fits this article's phrasing of, "Paul Krugman has noted that the Austrians failure to use models has left them unaware of holes in their own thinking". (I probably wouldn't use "noted" in that sentence.) CRETOG8(t/c) 20:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
"the Austrian abhorrence of EXPLICIT models" is not the same as "Austrians failure to use models". AS use models--like supply and demand. What they don't like is using models that cover several variables that claim "there's this precise mathematical equation that explains precisely what's going on". Byelf2007 (talk) 21 September 2011
Response: 1) I'm not sure if WP:NEWSBLOG applies since I don't think the NYT fact checks their opinion section. However, in WP:Self-published sources it says "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." So even if the blog weren't on the NYT website it would still be OK. 2) Krugman is a well known economist. His comments seem notable enough to me. 3) Adding the word "explicit" in front of "models" seems like a reasonable fix. The removal of the word "noted" is fine as well.--Dark Charles (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we have to assume that the NYT exercises editorial control over its' blog. To what extent they fact check such material is not an issue for, or in, this particular WP:POLICY. As it is not addressed, we need not second-guess the fact checking conducted by the NYT in the opinion pieces they publish. (After all, they are the RS publisher.) Once we clarify that Krugman (or others for that matter) is giving his opinion we are on firm editing grounds.--S. Rich (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I second that. But I always thought fact checking was necessary for something to be under a newspaper's "full editorial control". Not sure. It's moot because the source would be OK even if it were self-published due to the reasons I gave above. But just FYI, according to Brmull, the NYT's blogs are fact checked (source). I heard that they weren't, but I don't remember from where. I once emailed someone at the newspaper about it, but I never got a response.--Dark Charles (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe the most appropriate wiki policy regarding Krugman's NYT opinion blog is Statements of opinion. "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." So the question here is not whether Krugman's blog material is reliably sourced, but whether his statements of opinion are used in the appropriate context in the AS article among statements of fact. Another wiki policy can offer us guidance here, Academic consensus. The policy says "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." To the extent that Krugman is a representative for another academic school of thought makes this policy appropriate for examining this phrase "Austrian... unaware of the holes in their account." We have consensus that the AS does not like the use of "explicit models" in the tradition of the Krugman school. (check) The insinuation of "holes" in the ABCT as a statement from the mainstream view is a stronger claim that requires a higher standard for reliable sources that claims (as per WP:RS/AC) "that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view" of the AS being unaware of the holes in their account of ABCT due to their abhorrence of explicit models. Going to the statement made in the AS article "Paul Krugman has noted that the Austrians failure to use models has left them unaware of holes in their own thinking" would make it seem to a casual reader of the article that Krugman simply is parroting the consensus of the academic community instead of simply making an opinion that may or may not share consensus. Additionally, as User:Byelf2007 observes above, "the Austrian abhorrence of EXPLICIT models" is not the same as "Austrians failure to use models". I would add emphasis to the words abhorrence and failure though, as the statement "I abhor going back to work on Monday" is not the same as "I failed to go back to work on Monday." However, as Robert P. Murphy notes in a response to Krugman he can show the Austrian perspective in a formal (explicit) model. Additionally, the phrase "Krugman has noted" is problematic according to wiki MOS policy Synonyms for said because as we established regarding Krugman's statements in his blog as opinions and not necessarily facts, "To write that someone noted... can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable." So to the extent the citation of Krugman using his NYT opinion blog is needed at all in an article about the AS, his material should be quoted WP:RSOPINION and the neutral forms for said used WP:SAY. I found it interesting that the AS has issued an outstanding challenge to Krugman to debate and clarify the claims of the Austrians and the Keynesians. So if there are any general claims Krugman has of the AS, in the light of this academic challenge, the statement in the article should take care to differentiate between facts and opinion. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 11:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that we're converging to the consensus that the blog can be used as a reliable source of Krugman's opinion, and I'm OK with that part, although I disagree with various parts of different folks' reasoning. If we grant that it's OK to use this blog, I still don't think it's a good idea to use this particular blog entry. Krugman blogs a lot, with many of his statements seeming off-the-cuff. He has talked about the Austrian school from time to time in more depth, and I think it's fine to use one of his full-length articles on that. Using a short snippet from his blog seems very WP:UNDUE to me, even if we accept WP:RS. CRETOG8(t/c) 14:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

I just had reason to look up austrian school of economics. The introdcution is awful. It is utterly incomprehensible unless you understand the subject. No, incomprehensible unless you understand the vocabulary it uses. Someone like me - or a lot less clued up than me - should be able to look at the first paragraph of the article and be able to understand the basic idea. Which seems to be that it is a ragbag of different ideas but basically let the market get on with it because no one understands it anyway. Did I translate that right?Sandpiper (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the vocabulary is no more incomprehensible than other esoteric topics you may find on wikipedia. I think the article is sufficiently concise in its prose although that should not stop a capable editor to further refine the introduction to make it better. It would be a mistake to take out certain words that are already linked to other wiki articles for the sake of simplification. Clarity is welcomed however. The best place to perhaps condense the material down would be to create a definition of Austrian School of Economics in wikt:Austrian similar to the style used for wikt:Keynesian. The Austrian School summary has a more abbreviated version in the "Schools of economic thought" article. Maybe it would be helpful to future wiki users and link to this summary in the main article? Maybe someone can take a crack at it. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 04:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe user:Sandpiper would like a definition-style like what is found here at the businessdictionary.com. Again, I think what we have as an introduction for Austrian School is adequate for wikipedia. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 04:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
You mean, it is pretty awful but that is good enough? yes, I do prefer the linked description of austrian school. This is not an encycopedia for people who are financial experts but for everybody who hears mention of 'Austrian school' in the news and wonders what the hell it is. It should at least be possible to understand the words used in the introduction without stopping to look up and read articles on every other one. I generally reckon the first sentence should define the subject. The first paragraph should be an explanation you could give to any stranger you spoke to in the street, the whole introduction should cover the major points of the article. The intro needs to abbreviate by being simplistic, not by packing in difficult concepts at an extraordinary density. It is not acceptable to introduce concepts just linking them without explaining them as you go. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section where it says (amongst other things),
The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for the topic being noteworthy should be established early on in the lead. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article.
In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction. Mathematical equations and formulas should not be used except in mathematics articles. Templates, other than Infoboxes, should be avoided, as they are not displayed in tooltip previews and make the article summary unintelligible. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it.Sandpiper (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Not NPOV

I sense an undercurrent of pejorative negativity in this article, starting with the immediate characterization of the AS as "heterodox". For perspective I refer to the WP article on Judaism - it states factually that only two-tenths of one percent of the world's population practices the faith without resorting to a dismissive term like "heterodox". How would an edit characterizing Judaism as a "minor" or "insignificantly practiced" religion be received? The AS article contains twenty-two (!) mentions of the word "mainstream" (exclusive of the References section). Again the intent seems to be to diminish AS rather than to compare and contrast it to this or that specific school. I note parenthetically that the word "mainstream" itself connotes a flowing body of water, whose course may from time to time change. Finally, the Business Cycles section under Theories, specifically the two paragraphs commencing with "In contrast to most mainstream (there's that word again) theories on business cycles...", places so many terms in quotes ("artificial", "bubble", "recession", "bust", "clear") as to come across as a mockery of the subject rather than a discussion thereof. The tone seems similar to the one a policeman would take when asking "So lady, where exactly did you see the 'little green men'?" Suggestions therefore are (a) remove "heterodox"; (b) change instances of "mainstream" to reflect the actual school being compared/contrasted; (c) rewrite of Business Cycles. Musicmax (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles are not written exclusively from the point of view of the subject. They are written to reflect the point(s) of view of the whole scientific community. The current article does a good job of describing the ambivalence of most of the scientific community to the Austrian school. This is Wikipedia's definition of NPOV. LK (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Blaug and macro

This material discussing criticisms by Blaug has been removed. First, I point out that it is adequately sourced, and so I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. I read the argument against including it as being that the criticism is somehow incomplete without explaining why macroeconomics is important or exactly how it conflicts with methodological individualism. If all of that information can be compressed into a comprehensible bit to add to the article, I agree it would be superior. However, what's quite clear to me is that Blaug sees them in conflict and sees that as a genuine problem. I'm sure many economists would agree, but this is only citing Blaug and probably is doing so truthfully, so... I don't see what's wrong with it. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As I already said, the point of the criticisms section is to explain criticisms and there is no explanation there of why macroeconomics is important (which is essential to his criticism), nor is there an explanation of how methodological individualism negates macroeconomics. This has to be explained. Otherwise, it would like including something that says "Some guy thinks AS methodology is bad because it's not detailed enough" (without saying how) or "Some guy thinks ABCT is wrong because it doesn't explain why chocolate tastes good to some people" (without saying why that's relevant). The burden is on people who want to include stuff to have it make sense and be relevant to the article and section it's in. The burden is NOT on me to make it make sense since I don't particularly care if it's included. You're essentially saying "Hey, man, this is just this guy's opinion. Maybe it should be more detailed, but what's wrong with including his opinion?" My point is that we literally don't know what his opinion is beyond mere assertions. That's not good enough to be included in a criticisms section. If anyone cares about this guy's criticisms, they should explain it well enough that someone can understand it. Otherwise, it has no place here. Byelf2007 (talk) 30 September 2011
While I don't understand it in a deep enough way that I'd feel comfortable running a seminar on it, I do understand it based simply on what's there. I expect many others will as well. If an art history expert of note said something like, "an insistence on realism would mean discarding a great deal of 20th century art," that would similarly make sense without needing to explain why 20th century art is worth keeping around or why an insistence on realism would conflict with that.CRETOG8(t/c) 01:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
You understand "what's there", yes, obviously. What we don't understand is the reasoning of the criticism. We are not told why macroeconomics is true or how methodological individualism violates this. It's like saying "If you are an atheist, you don't believe the Bible is the word of God, therefore, you are immoral." But why does not believing the Bible is the word of God make you immoral? We need to know that to *understand* the argument. "an insistence on realism would mean discarding a great deal of 20th century art" You mean "only realist paintings are good"? Okay, so why are they? That has to be there for us to understand the objection. "that would similarly make sense without needing to explain why 20th century art is worth keeping around or why an insistence on realism would conflict with that." It would only make sense insofar as we know what the person's opinion is, but we wouldn't understand it. There's no point in saying "Some guy objects to this theory because it discards X" if we aren't told why that's bad. Byelf2007 (talk) 30 September 2011

Blaug is one of the foremost scholars in the field of economic thought. It is highly notable if he states that a problem exists. The quote clearly shows that he observes that a problem exists. Please don't use WP:OR to argue that that a notable person's criticism is misguided, or is somehow not a criticism. LK (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you bother to read what I have to say? I'm not saying his objection isn't notable--I'm saying we aren't told what it is. If you care about including this, then make it work. Byelf2007 (talk) 6 October 2011
It's clear to me what it is. Please don't use OR to argue that it's unclear. LK (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not using OR--I'm deleting content. And, again, we are not told why this guy thinks AS is anti-macroeconomics *OR* why macroeconomics is good. In short, we aren't told what his opinion is. Byelf2007 (talk) 6 October 2011
You're essentially saying that either my description of Blaug's complaint, or Blaug's own description of his complaint (since I quote him) about methodological individualism is so badly written as to be not understandable. I, myself, find the meaning pretty clear. If you cannot understand such a paragraph, I doubt that you should be editing encyclopedia articles. As to why it is a problem to throw away the entire corpus of Macroeconomics, we do not have to discuss that issue. It is enough to note that Blaug believes it is a problem, since Blaug is a notable voice about Economic philosophy. LK (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
"I, myself, find the meaning pretty clear." The meaning of the statement "I think AS is anti-macro and macro is good" is clear. What is NOT clear to us is either why macro is good, or (this is way more important) why AS is anti-macro. I'm willing, as a compromise, to allow criticism of AS being anti-macro without an explanation of why macro is good. Because we aren't told why AS is anti-macro, we are not told enough of his opinion to understand it. Is he saying he believes this because he had a dream about it? Or is there actually an argument in there somewhere? I'll also add that the quote contains two instances of "..." What is left out is probably what I need for this to be included--it's probably THE ARGUMENT. I need to know what it is. I'm not okay with including raw assertions in a criticisms sections of an article, such as "Mr. X thinks opinion Z is incorrect" without a "because [argument]". You have repeatedly not responded to my argument. Either it's OK to include assertions without any argumentation whatsoever in a criticisms section (where's the WP:rule ?), or you need to include his argument (assuming he has one). Finally, I'll add that the burden for inclusion is on the person who wants to include something, so please stop including this in this and other articles (such as methodological individualism) until you've mad a case that addresses my argument. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 October 2011
WP:BURDEN is about verifiability, and this material is referenced and so verifiable. LK (and I) have satisfied the burden for including this, unless you have some other notion of burden in mind. The discussion here is (or should be) about whether including the Blaug thing is a good idea. The part I see in the quote which seems to me to answer your question is "In effect, it would rule out all macroeconomic propositions that cannot be reduced to microeconomic ones". So... I don't see what you see is missing. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about verifiability, I was talking about relevancy/clarity. Anyway, we know that he says "it would rule out all macroeconomic propositions that cannot be reduced to microeconomic ones" but we are NOT told WHY he thinks this. It's just an assertion. We need an argument. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 October 2011

Since Byelf2007 seems unable or unwilling to read replies to his objections in paragraph form, I'll answer here his objections in point form:

  • Clarity - It's clear to the economists at WP:ECON what the objection is. It is that Blaug: i) believes that macroeconomic thought has value, and ii) believes that strict methodological individualism would reject almost all macroeconomic thought.
  • Relevancy - AS advocates the sole use of methodological individualism in economics, Blaug objects to this.
  • "we are NOT told WHY he thinks this" - We don't have to defend Blaug's belief that macroeconomic thought has value. As a notable acdemic in history of economic thought, it is enough to note that he believes it does.

LK (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

LK, I'm not sure if you're right or wrong, but where is the WP:RULE on this? I find it hard to believe that we can include assertions in "criticisms" without any argumentation. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 October 2011
update: I read over the "criticisms" WP page, and it doesn't state a position on this issue. I tried to read Blaug's arguments, but can't find them online (copyrighted) His opinion, as such, will have to do, unfortunately. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 October 2011

Caplan/Klein "criticisms"

From the article as it presently is: "Caplan also argues that Austrian economists have often misunderstood modern economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it. For example, many Austrian economists 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. The result is that conclusions about utility preferences hold no matter what values are assigned to them."

This is not a criticism of AS theory: it's a criticism of how SOME (not all) AS economists misunderstand some other economists' work on microeconomics. Is there a part of AS theory that says "We must always object to the use of cardinal utility in microeconomics, even when it's literally impossible for it's use to not make sense" and/or "We must always assume that when people apply X to Y, that they're also applying X to Z, even when they go to great pains to tell us they're not applying X to Z"? Nope. Do AS economists often screw this/similar up? Perhaps. It this necessarily a part of AS? I don't see how this is the case.

From the article as it presently is: "Another criticism of the school from Benjamin Klein is that although Austrian School economist Israel M. Kirzner highlights shortcomings in traditional methodology, Kirzner does not provide viable alternatives for making positive contributions to economic theory."

This is a criticism of Kirzner (one guy), not AS economists in general. And even if it were a criticism of AS economists in general, that still doesn't make it a criticism of AS (as in AS theory).

I think we'd better get rid of both of these. It's like criticizing the paradox of thrift concept because Keynes made a mistake in the General Theory. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 October 2011

It's a valid criticism. Not only was this misunderstanding prominently promoted by Austrian School leaders, you still hear some austrian sympathizers repeat the same misunderstanding today. BigK HeX (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
You're not addressing my arguments--this is a criticism of what some AS economists have said, not AS theory. There is NO source (or is there? where is it?) that says AS advocates what a few AS economists, in this case, have said. This is an article on "AS", not "AS economists".Byelf2007 (talk) 9 October 2011
Your argument here is nonsensical at best. The Austrian School's leading theorists are obviously part of the Austrian School. For you to claim them to be unrelated isn't even worth this much of a response.
Stop edit warring. BigK HeX (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
BigK HeX, you are not addressing my argument. Did I saying some AS theorists aren't a part of the AS? Nope. What I did say is that the "criticisms" section of an article about a school of economics should be limited to criticisms of the school of economics in question. The Austrian school of economics consists of its theories, not whatever every AS theorist says (consider that their views can conflict with one another).
What is AS? I think it's (based on this article) methodological individualism in interpreting economic developments and praxeology specifically, rejection of empirical statistical methods, natural experiments and constructed experiments as tools applicable to economics, support for a free/mostly free market as being the best (in a utilitarian sense) as per the economic calculation debate, its business cycle theory, its capital theory, its inflation theory, its support for thinking that price-deflation won't lead to a "deflationary spiral" because the price level will adjust, its support for time preference, its rejection of liquidity preference, its opportunity cost theory, and maybe a couple other things.
Is there any place in this article that says AS theory (as in what ALL AS theorists support) includes rejection the use of cardinal utility in microeconomic theory applied to monotonic transformations of utility in all circumstances. No. Are there AS theorists who don't reject such? Yes, obviously. So what happens when *some* AS theorists believe this and others don't? Who gets to determine what AS is and isn't?
AS theory is basically whatever a large enough group of people say it is. When a few AS theorists come along and support ideas that other AS theorists don't, who is AS and who isn't? Well, unless one group decides to come up with a different name, they are ALL AS theorists, and what they have in COMMON is AS theory, until one of those groups start calling themselves something like "Neo-Austrian School" or something, and then we have a new article.
You did not address this argument, which I have only made more explicit (because you in no way challenged it). Your only argument is "The Austrian School's leading theorists are obviously part of the Austrian School." I never said they aren't. And I said that the "criticisms" section should be limited to criticisms of AS theory (which is what this article is about, not "people who are AS theorists"). If you want to put this info in the history section, I don't really care. But neither or these are in no way criticisms of AS (as in AS theory, not what a few AS theorists happen to think, even though not all AS theorists agree). There is no reason for me to keep in the material if no one responds to my objections. The burden of relevance is on the people who want to include the material. You can't assert it should be kept in unless you address my objections. You haven't. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 October 2011

Byelf2007, please do not edit war against the consensus of editors here, regardless about what you may think should be in the article. Further, your edits appear to be aimed at whitewashing the article, removing anything you perceive to be negative about AS, this is against our policy of neutrality. Currently, your edits and arguments appear to be made without regard to our content policies, WP:NPV, WP:NOR and WP:V. If an issue is relevant and verifiable, it should be presented in the article with appropriate weight. Please do not remove material because you don't like it. Do not revert other editors just because, in your opinion, they have not answered your arguments. You should not expect answers to arguments that are not based on policy, or if other editors feel that the policy issues have already been adequately addressed. Looking at your editing history, I would note that you appear to be here with a single purpose, that is to promote libertarian issues. It is not acceptable behavior to edit in a consistently biased way, either edit neutrally, applying policy without regards to which 'side' you agree with, or don't edit at all. LK (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

#1 "please do not edit war against the consensus of editors here, regardless about what you may think should be in the article" There is no "consensus of editors here" unless they actually respond to my arguments. No one has. Show me one place in this section where anyone has actually responded to the objections to the material in question. The link says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." No one else has attempted to resolve this issue via discussion because no one has addressed my arguments. You can't say that when people are objecting to an edit and their arguments in no way address your point that this someone constitutes discussion that should be taken seriously. #2 I'm not eliminating all AS criticisms, I'm eliminating content which I do not think is appropriate #3 You make no argument as to why I violate WP:NPV, WP:NOR or WP:V #4 "If an issue is relevant..." I'm actually arguing that it isn't (at least to the criticisms section--you're not addressing my argument about this issue). #5 "Please do not remove material because you don't like it." What's your case for me doing this? Please note that I'm actually making arguments. #6 "Do not revert other editors just because, in your opinion, they have not answered your arguments." The problem is that no one actually has objected. Would you take someone seriously who reverted your edits without objecting to your arguments for them taking place on discussion even after you've done so? If you think BigK HeX actually has addressed my argument, you can actually explain why you think this is the case with an argument. #7 "You should not expect answers to arguments that are not based on policy" This is based on policy--I'm arguing that the content in question is not relevant to the section in question (criticisms). Are you OK with someone putting AS history in the criticisms section? #8 "or if other editors feel that the policy issues have already been adequately addressed." Even if I disagree with them? I'm not supposed to express my opinion? No one has even addressed my argument so far. #9 "Looking at your editing history, I would note that you appear to be here with a single purpose, that is to promote libertarian issues." If you actually go to that link, you'll find it says "a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag." That means there's nothing wrong with being an SPA, #10 "It is not acceptable behavior to edit in a consistently biased way" And you haven't provided any argument for why you think I've done consistently biased editing, nor have you given any reason to include the contested material.
Finally (not that it really matters), I'm not SPA according to the page: "Examples of non-SPAs include users with a diversified edit history that become inactive for an extended period and later re-establish themselves with single subject edits." You can look at my entire edit history and know that this applies to me. The fact that you apparently didn't check this out indicates to me that it is you in fact who are biased. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 October 2011
Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, your "arguments" have been addressed. The prominent misunderstandings of AS theorists promoted as "setting the Austrian school apart" are relevant to the article. The material is sourced, and written neutrally.
I would suggest more discussion and less edit warring from you, per the WP:BRD cycle. You attempted an edit -- IT WAS REVERTED. Accept that until discussion here resolves. BigK HeX (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
BigK HeX, you've once AGAIN not addressed my arguments. My argument is NOT that the "prominent misunderstandings of AS theorists promoted as setting the Austrian school apart [by some AS theorists, not all]" are not relevant to the article, but that it is not relevant to the >>>criticisms section<<<, because it isn't a criticism of AS theory (covered in the article), but what SOME AS theorists have argued. Unless you can prove that AS theory includes rejection the use of cardinal utility in microeconomic theory applied to monotonic transformations of utility in all circumstances, you have no case. Most notably, some of the content you wish to keep says "For example, MANY [emphasis mine] Austrian economists object to the use of cardinal utility in microeconomic theory" In other words, you're defending content that explicitly says not all AS economists believe this. Where are your arguments/sources that this applies to all AS economists? Obviously, someone who objects to methodological individualism or ABCT can't be AS, as per all the sources in this article, but this? Where's your case? There's no reason to expect you can get the edits you want by fiat.
Finally, I'll add that it's inappropriate to revert an edit prior to explaining why you're going to do it on the discussion page. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 October 2011

addendum

I'm disappointed that those who disagree with me have repeatedly not addressed my arguments, accused me of making arguments that I didn't, ignored my explanations of why they didn't address my arguments, and resorted to argumentum ad populum.

I will ask you all again: Does AS theory (as in ABCT, AS views on inflation, etc., as in what ALL AS theorists support) include rejection the use of cardinal utility in microeconomic theory applied to monotonic transformations of utility in all circumstances?

Since Caplan explains that there is a clear misunderstanding by *some* AS theorists on this issue, I find it hard to believe that *all* AS theorists believe in this.

If people want to include this material in another section, that's fine. Perhaps we can divide the "criticisms" section into "of theory" and "of economists" subsections. I appreciate input on this.

And, obviously, a criticism of *one* guy (Kirzner) can hardly be viewed as an attack on AS theorists in general.

In about 18 hours, I'm going to edit the content. If anyone objects, I sincerely hope they actually address my arguments before reverting and don't resort to any logical fallacies or arguing against straw men. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 October 2011

Unless there is a recognized canonical work which encompasses AS theory, it is impossible to satisfy the apparent criterion you're using. A criticism of a scholar who is recognized as very significant within the Austrian school and appears to be writing as an AS economist is essentially a criticism of the Austrian school. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
"Unless there is a recognized canonical work which encompasses AS theory, it is impossible to satisfy the apparent criterion you're using." That's true. However, this also means there's no recognized canonical work that says what these AS guys are saying counts as AS. If guys who call themselves AS object to ABCT, are they still AS? Since it's in a criticism section of AS, the implication is that it is a criticism of everyone who is AS. I think there's a solution though: create a "general criticisms" subsection. Is this an acceptable compromise? Byelf2007 (talk) 11 October 2011

continuing influence of the AS

This article [1] from the Economic Policy Research org has a listing of AS economists who are practicing to this day. Seems, therefore, that influence continues. The stand alone sentence that the AS "was" influential, without fairly mentioning the continuing influence, is improper.--S. Rich (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

How does it logically follow that "there exist some, therefore they must be influential?" There are Flat Earthers to this day and that proves ... what exactly? BigK HeX (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
False analogy. No Flat Earthers achieved a Nobel prize. None teach at George Mason University, etc.. None have influence with Ron Paul or other politicos. The link I provided is a resource for more WP:RS. My point is that the syntax of the "was influential" language improperly implied that influence had ended. Such is not the case. Keynes "was" influential for a period, and he lost influence during stagflation. These days he's got his mojo back -- at least with some. The influence -- continuing, past, whatever -- of the AS (and JMK) needs to be put in proper context. Hence my edit and this discussion page input.--S. Rich (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Again .... NONE of that shows any significant influence. So what if ONE or two minor colleges out of thousands have Austrians (especially when their work isn't required reading at ANY notable college)? So what if one kooky legislator likes them? And so what if ONE of them got a Nobel decades ago for work he did in the 40's? None of that shows they have had any influence on economics in the past 60 years. BigK HeX (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. The recent Nobelists got the prize because they said "many economists had underestimated the complexity with which businesses and people respond to economic events and government actions. The two showed how hard it is to predict public responses to policy changes." They did their work in the 1970s. Did their influence end in 1981 after Sargeant wrote his stuff? (And aren't they supporting the AS contention that economics does not lend itself well to scientific experimentation?) --S. Rich (talk) 04:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The word "influential" is kinda applying a binary term to a continuous value. "Was influential" means that there was a time when they had a lot of influence. There was much less influence for a good while. It appears as though the AS influence is waxing again, at least in popular culture, but not necessarily among economists. So... I lean toward thinking that "was influential" is probably more appropriate in that the bar of influentiality that they had achieved in the past is higher than their current standing. However, refining the language (with good sources) could be a better approach than trying to pin down exactly where the threshold is for "influential". As an aside this article doesn't seem very enlightening about current AS practitioners. It seems that the folks there who are not either dead or quite old aren't elaborated on. On strangenessis that I know (for instance) that Andrew Schotter is an experimental economist, which according to most of the prose here would put him out of the bounds of the Austrian school. (Same holds for Vernon Smith for that matter, although he gives Hayek and Mises a lot of kudos.) CRETOG8(t/c) 16:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right about "influence" as a continuous value. We use the terms "Influenced" and "Influences" in the economist infoboxes. ("Keynes is widely considered to be one of the founders of modern macroeconomics, and to be the most influential economist of the 20th century.") But when we add the "was" to describe a time frame for that influence (either for Keynes or the AS), we are limiting the "continuous" nature of that value. We are improperly putting an ending threshold on the value. And this is done by POV editors who want to relegate various AS scholars to the Flat Earth Society. Also, it does not matter if people are dead or almost dead. We have living people who consider themselves influenced by the AS. Similarly, Keynes is dead but his influence (for better or worse) continues. The paragraph we have now gives a good description of the current influence. We do not need a sentence that implies that the influence has ended.--S. Rich (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Intro Section

This first sentence: "The Austrian School of economics is a heterodox school of economic thought that advocates methodological individualism in interpreting economic developments and emphasizes the spontaneous order guided by the price mechanism". This is unintelligible. An encyclopedia article should make sense to a reasonably intelligent person, even if they don't have a degree in the discipline discussed within the article. Everything but the first six words is babble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.186.79 (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Intro section [2]

In response to the recent debate on Caplan/Klein, I've reworked the intro section. What're peoples thoughts on this? I'm very open to revision here. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 October 2011

It may well be correct, but it appears to me to be WP:OR. We should try to put something there that can be reliably sourced. I suggest creating something from:
LK (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
You're right about needing sources, but, as far as I can tell, neither of these links help. I'm pretty sure the 10 propositions from the Boettke link are all accepted by most mainstream economists. The Mises Institute link also seems to only go over history instead of summarizing what makes the school unique. I'm going to make the necessary "citation needed"s.Byelf2007 (talk) 11 October 2011
Definitions should not focus on differences but on general characteristics. -- Vision Thing -- 18:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
How about the way it is now? Byelf2007 (talk) 13 October 2011

Lede balance

The Austrian School of economics is a heterodox school of economic thought. It advocates methodological individualism in interpreting economic developments (see praxeology), the theory that money is non-neutral, and emphasizes the organizing power of the price mechanism (see economic calculation debate). Austrian economists generally advocate a laissez faire approach to the economy.
Austrian economists argue that mathematical models and statistics are an unreliable means of analyzing and testing economic theory, and advocate deriving economic theory logically from basic principles of human action, a study called praxeology. Additionally, whereas experimental research and natural experiments are often used in mainstream economics, Austrian economists generally hold that testability in economics and mathematical modeling of a market is virtually impossible since it relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions. Mainstream economists are generally critical of methodologies used by modern Austrian economists. In particular, the Austrian method of deriving theories has been criticized by mainstream economists as being a priori or non-empirical.
Austrian contributions to mainstream economic thought include involvement in the development of the marginalism and the subjective theory of value on which it is based, as well as contributions to the economic calculation debate. From the middle of the 20th century onwards, it has been considered outside the mainstream of economic thought. Its reputation rose in the mid-1970's, particularly because Friedrich Hayek shared a Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on the Austrian theory of business cycles.

Language which clearly says AS is outside the MS is in bold print. Language which clearly praises the AS is in italics. Everything else, I submit, is clearly NPOV. The comments about the AS as outside the MS (heterodoxical) slightly outweigh the praise, but IMHO are acceptable.--S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think all of it is fine.
Mainstream economists ARE generally critical of methodologies used by modern Austrian economists. and the Austrian method of deriving theories HAS been criticized by mainstream economists as being a priori or non-empirical. Austrian contributions to mainstream economic thought DO include involvement in the development of the marginalism and the subjective theory of value on which it is based, as well as contributions to the economic calculation debate. From the middle of the 20th century onwards, it HAS been considered outside the mainstream of economic thought. Its reputation DID rise in the mid-1970's, particularly because Friedrich Hayek shared a Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on the Austrian theory of business cycles.
The "Austrian contributions to mainstream economic thought..." part particularly stands out to me as not violating neutrality. You're saying "people criticize AS for..." as being anti-AS, and "AS rep improved..." as being pro-AS, but with this part, all we're being told is that AS contributed to some theories. For someone ignorant of economics who reads this lede, they have no way of knowing if those theories are generally considered crazy or mainstream.
I see no way that any of this could plausibly violate neutrality because it's not saying these criticisms/theories are good/bad. I don't see what's wrong with people learning this in the lede section. These are just facts. Byelf2007 (talk) 14 October 2011

Inflation

What is the point of Figure 1 in this section? Is it supposed to be a clarification of Austrian School view or its critique? -- Vision Thing -- 20:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

A little while ago I posted some comments on the intro, which seem to have been archived automatically before anyone could act on them. Therefore I am re-posting the comments below to correct the bot's mistake. In particular I would draw everyone's attention to the guidelines on writing an introduction which state that specialist terms should never be used unless they are explained right there in the intro. Simply linking them is not enough, it just leaves unintelligible rubbish for any non-expert who wants to be able to read the into and understand broadly what the subject is about. Wiki is about helping people to understand. Sandpiper (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


I just had reason to look up austrian school of economics. The introdcution is awful. It is utterly incomprehensible unless you understand the subject. No, incomprehensible unless you understand the vocabulary it uses. Someone like me - or a lot less clued up than me - should be able to look at the first paragraph of the article and be able to understand the basic idea. Which seems to be that it is a ragbag of different ideas but basically let the market get on with it because no one understands it anyway. Did I translate that right?Sandpiper (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the vocabulary is no more incomprehensible than other esoteric topics you may find on wikipedia. I think the article is sufficiently concise in its prose although that should not stop a capable editor to further refine the introduction to make it better. It would be a mistake to take out certain words that are already linked to other wiki articles for the sake of simplification. Clarity is welcomed however. The best place to perhaps condense the material down would be to create a definition of Austrian School of Economics in wikt:Austrian similar to the style used for wikt:Keynesian. The Austrian School summary has a more abbreviated version in the "Schools of economic thought" article. Maybe it would be helpful to future wiki users and link to this summary in the main article? Maybe someone can take a crack at it. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 04:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe user:Sandpiper would like a definition-style like what is found here at the businessdictionary.com. Again, I think what we have as an introduction for Austrian School is adequate for wikipedia. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 04:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
You mean, it is pretty awful but that is good enough? yes, I do prefer the linked description of austrian school. This is not an encycopedia for people who are financial experts but for everybody who hears mention of 'Austrian school' in the news and wonders what the hell it is. It should at least be possible to understand the words used in the introduction without stopping to look up and read articles on every other one. I generally reckon the first sentence should define the subject. The first paragraph should be an explanation you could give to any stranger you spoke to in the street, the whole introduction should cover the major points of the article. The intro needs to abbreviate by being simplistic, not by packing in difficult concepts at an extraordinary density. It is not acceptable to introduce concepts just linking them without explaining them as you go. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section where it says (amongst other things),
The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for the topic being noteworthy should be established early on in the lead. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article.
In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction. Mathematical equations and formulas should not be used except in mathematics articles. Templates, other than Infoboxes, should be avoided, as they are not displayed in tooltip previews and make the article summary unintelligible. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it.Sandpiper (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


On synthesis

I'ld like to explain my recent action[2] as the reasoning may be unclear. In the criticism section, mainstream economist XXX saying AS is wrong because of YYY is often followed by a response from AS economist along the lines "XXX is wrong to say YYY because ...." To be part of this conversation, an AS economist needs to be critiquing the argument YYY that was made by the mainstream economist. It would be synthesis to include writings by AS economists or others in order to 'prove' argument YYY incorrect, unless those arguments were specifically made to rebut argument YYY. This is pretty clear from WP:SYN. LK (talk) 10:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Fair enough. Byelf2007 (talk) 19 October 2011

On the Mises Institute

The Mises Institute has about 300+ contributors, so I can't imagine why that isn't enough for peer review. It's currently publishing several periodicals and has been for years. Its alexa rank for the US is 3,535--pretty solid. Their articles are well cited. They have neither are poor reputation for accuracy (in terms of facts, not opinions) nor a lack of editorial oversight. I don't see how this can be properly characterized as a run-of-the-mill blog. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 November 2011

Find me any economist reviewing the "Sushi Model" theory that Murphy proposes in that blog post. BigK HeX (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/great-leaps-backward/ Wow, that took me, like, 10 seconds. Do you think Krugman has a good reputation? Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
For me, the question is not whether Mises blog entries are reliable sources (marginally acceptable on Austrian views), but rather how is it being presented in this article. Keep in mind the WP:YESPOV admonition about giving apparent parity to majority and small minority views. LK (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep in mind WP:YESPOV's examples: [denialism] and "claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar." Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
So...? BigK HeX (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
So, for the 100th time, you have to demonstrate that AS economic theory as unpopular within economics as holocaust denialism within the study of history or as Earth=flat view within the scientific community to object to having AS argument follow a mainstream one on these grounds. Please stop trolling. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
No. We don't have to prove any such equivalence. Nor is that ever implied by the NPOV policy. You're making things up that aren't in the policy .... for the 100th time. NOWHERE in the policy does it say that POV only applies to things as egregious as Holocaust Denialism -- your claim about WP policy is nonsensical. BigK HeX (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Then what would be the POINT of those examples? You're claiming that a "sufficiently minority view" by YOUR standards apply to AS theory. But this isn't your wiki. The Wikipedia policy is that this applies to THEIR examples of superminority views, hence the need for equivalence. Otherwise, you could use this objection against a 45% view within the scientific community (it is, a minority viewpoint after all). But what if someone said "No, the cut off point is 30%" or "Let's have this apply to things which are as unpopular as the notion that Shakespeare didn't actually write all those books"? Are you going to argue with them about where the cut off point should be? No, because this is Wikipedia, and it has given you the examples you MUST work with because it is THEIR site with THEIR standards. If you don't like these examples, then, by all means, go start your own wiki. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
I have no qualms with those EXAMPLES. Your silly mischaracterization of them is the troublesome part. You have a problematically deficient understanding of WP policy if you don't grasp that WP:UNDUE applies to EVERYTHING, even "45%" minority views. BigK HeX (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
So where is the part on that page that says that having a 45% view follow a 55% view is undue weight? Come to think of it, how would we ever write an article on a debate about something if this were the case? Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
RE: "where is the part on that page that says that having a 45% view follow a 55% view is undue weight"
This question is so nonsensical that it can only come from someone who doesn't understand the policy.
ANYTHING can be written with undue weight .... even a "49%"-"51%" viewpoint, and our duty under NPOV policy is to make sure we minimize this from occurring. In this case, pretty obviously, given some little mentioned self-published blog post from an academic who receives little attention from the relevant academic community versus a magazine article from a Nobel prize economist, the two shouldn't be presented as if there were no significant difference in the general regard of each writing. BigK HeX (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Just because one follows another doesn't suggest that there isn't a significant difference in the general regard of the two--only that both have sufficient notability. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
That's EXACTLY what it suggests to a reader when no further details are given. BigK HeX (talk) 07:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
No it doesn't. There's no rule that you can't have a little-known article follow a well-known one, but that having a little-known one follow another little-known one is okay. There are, however, rules about whether or not an article has SUFFICIENT notability. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
Yes. There ARE rules. They are the NPOV rules. A reader should NOT come away from an article that discusses conflicting perspectives with the impression that there are two roughly equal opinions if they are NOT roughly equal. Why do you act like you don't know this or that you care?? BigK HeX (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Again, the only example of this that the rules provide are between a "supermajority" and a "superminority/fringe". I have already gone over their examples of fringe many times. If you cannot establish an equivalency between AS theory and their examples, then you have no objection. Byelf2007 (talk) 21 November 2011
Your evidence that Mises Daily blogs are peer-reviewed is Krugman responding about 3 years later. Fascinating.... BigK HeX (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Really, dude? No, I obviously did not post Krugman's response as evidence that it's peer-reviewed. I did because of YOUR challenge to me to "Find me any economist reviewing the "Sushi Model" theory that Murphy proposes in that blog post", which I did, because I know how to use google. There is no indication that I did this to demonstrate that Mises Institute is peer reviewed. My evidence that it is peer review is that the Mises Institute is that they have an editor (http://mises.org/faculty.aspx) and their contributors are scholars--they read what gets posted and send objections to the material presented if they have any. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
So.... back to the RS problem, you have provided zero evidence that the Mises Daily blogs have any meaningful peer-review. BigK HeX (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
How so? Please stop making assertions without arguments. HOW have I, to your standards, failed to demonstrate that it is sufficiently peer-reviewed? I have repeatedly asked you to justify your assertions with arguments. Mere assertions don't count as argumentation. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
You failed to show Mises blogs are peer-reviewed by .... failing to show there exists any peer-review process. Just because you posted words, doesn't mean you actually showed anything. You seem to think that merely typing a response equates to meeting a burden of proof. It does not, and here, you have not met that burden. BigK HeX (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
From the relevant page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources): "If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." First, this says "generally" so it isn't always necessary that it's been preliminarily vetted by one or more scholars. Second, the fact that Mises Institute has an editor is sufficient evidence that articles are always preliminarily vetted by at least one scholar. You may object that we don't know for sure that this takes place, but that criticism can be used against any article. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
....and, again, the RS issue is topped by the immense NPOV problem of using such a non-notable blog post. BigK HeX (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Again, you're not explaining why it isn't notable. Please stop trolling. By the way, again, Paul Krugman, writing for the New York Times, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, author of many books, and arguably the most well-read economist alive today, has written about the Sushi Post from Mises Institute. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
Calling another editor a troll is violation of WP:POLITE. Please don't do that. LK (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Blog gets one whole mention (from a guy who the blog insults personally), and apparently that is guaranteed notability for you. I'm done responding to these outrageous claims. BigK HeX (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and you challenged me to "Find me any economist reviewing the "Sushi Model" theory that Murphy proposes in that blog post". Why offer me this challenge if that wasn't sufficient notability for you? To deliberately waste my time?
Do you think that Paul Krugman, writing for the New York Times, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics, author of many books, and arguably the most well-read economist alive today, writing about the post is not sufficient grounds for notability? If this is the case, why is this case? Yet again, you've made an assertion with no argumentation. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
WTF? YOU made all these grand claims about Mises Institute peer review ["I can't imagine why that isn't enough for peer review"], as if to suggest that even the Mises.org Daily blogs are peer-reviewed. Only then did I challenge you to find one of these peers that reviewed Murphy's blog post. Pretty clearly, you haven't found any evidence that peer review is conducted on those Mises Daily blog posts. BigK HeX (talk) 06:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
As I've already said, from the relevant page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources): "If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." First, this says "generally" so it isn't always necessary that it's been preliminarily vetted by one or more scholars. Second, the fact that Mises Institute has an editor (who goes over everything posted on the site) is sufficient evidence that articles are always preliminarily vetted by at least one scholar. You may object that we don't know for sure that this takes place, but that criticism can be used against any article.
I'm not sure what you have in mind. Am I supposed to provide a video showing the article getting peer reviewed? Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
There is no need for you to throw these ridiculous questions, just because you cannot meet the burden of proof. On Wikipedia, blogs are generally regarded as unreliable sources (for good reason). If you want to challenge that presumption, then YOU find any evidence that would convince a reasonable editor that the presumption is incorrect. BigK HeX (talk) 01:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
First, I'm not really sure if it's even appropriate to say "burden of proof"--of course I can't prove that any article in any newspaper got peer reviewed unless I was there and filming it. I've asked you to provide your standard for a burden of proof (or standard of sufficient evidence). You haven't. This means that you can always say my evidence is insufficient. Your answer thus far is only "prove that the peer-review is occurring." without saying HOW I'm supposed to do this. You've said a video is going to far. So how far is far enough? How is the Mises Institute saying they have an editor not sufficient?
I happen to agree with the wikipedia guidelines that we assume that a blog is reliable if it has a history of being reliable. Both Mises Institute and New York Times are reliable--you can scan through either of their articles and find that the vast majority of their fact-statements are true. This doesn't mean, of course, that the New York Times never gets anything thing wrong and has to make corrections. Our standard for reliability can't be "prove that the peer review is actually going on for each article in question". If we were to do that, then we'd pretty much have to have either video of every peer review that occurs or at least a great many witnesses that we have testimony from. If you think a New York Times article is reliable, then can you prove that the New York Times actually has an editor? Can you prove that the peer review is always taking place?
You might say "The New York Times has a good reputation and Mises doesn't, in part because it's not as well known". This would make we wonder what you regard as a sufficient reputation. Byelf2007 (talk) 21 November 2011
Peer review has a specific meaning and cannot be used to describe the Mises Institute or Krugman's editorials for that matter. TFD (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Why? You're providing no argument. Again, from the relevant page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources): "If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." First, this says "generally" so it isn't always necessary that it's been preliminarily vetted by one or more scholars. Second, the fact that Mises Institute has an editor (who goes over everything posted on the site) is sufficient evidence that articles are always preliminarily vetted by at least one scholar. You may object that we don't know for sure that this takes place, but that criticism can be used against any article. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
Again, you do not understand what peer-review means, read the linked article. TFD (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the peer-review page says. What matters is what the page on reliable sources says because that's what this dispute is about. If I've misinterpreted the RULES, you can explain to me why. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
Perhaps this discussion should take place on Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute.--S. Rich (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Math and Stats

On this,[3] are we really arguing whether AS rejects mathematics and statistics? It's in their own literature and in all reliable sources about AS methodology. LK (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, with respect to EVALUATING ECONOMIC THEORY. If you have it just be "use of math + stats", then that implies that they're against the use of math and stats, period. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
Pretty much a direct quote from multiple sources easily trumps your WP:OR or your faulty understanding, whichever it may be. BigK HeX (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying. Just because some people claim that something is true doesn't mean we should present it as true--the evidence is what matters. See my other comments on this matter. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
Wait... are you saying you deleted the text, when you would have agreed with it, if you merely added something like "in economics"? BigK HeX (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
No. If you just added "in studying economics", it's still false, because AS theorists uses stats in their articles all the time. If you change it to "in analyzing economic theory", then that's fine, but we already have that in the article. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011

LK's edits

One

LK's version: "Austrian economists generally hold that experiments in economics are unreliable as human actors cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions. Mainstream economists generally hold that mathematical models and empirical methods can accurately model and test economic behavior."

BigK HeX/my version: "Austrian economists generally hold that testability in economics and mathematical modeling of a market are virtually impossible because modeling a market relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions. Supporters of using models of market behavior to analyze and test economic theory argue that economists are able to accurately determine individual preferences."

1. "Testibility in economics" is more precise than "experiments in economics" because we're talking about whether or not you can test economic theory with experiments, not just have experiments involving economics.

2. We're talking about modeling a market, so that should be explicit.

3. Mathematical modeling isn't necessarily unreliable, it's just very difficult.

4. We want "Supporters of using models of market behavior to analyze" in there to make what we're talking about a little more easy to get for the reader (it's more explicit).

5. People trying to model economic behavior may use any number of methods, not necessarily just the two listed (we also don't have a source here, so it's best to be as generic as possible).

I believe both BigK and myself support my version rather than yours. I'll wait for other opinions on this issue. LK (talk) 03:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
As to the experimentation text: It is an Austrian claim -- not a fact -- that human actors "cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their actions." It will not be stated as a fact. BigK HeX (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll make the relevant change. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 November 2011
My change was just fine. You do not WP:OWN this article, such that everyone has to go through you. BigK HeX (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
How have I claimed that I do or acted as such? Byelf2007 (talk) 15 November 2011

To the extent that mathematical modeling relies on graphs and lines, it is unreliable .... the supply and demand curve lines would have you believe that for an infinitely small decrease in supply there will be an infinitely small increase in price ... however anyone can figure out this is a fantasy; in the U.S. the smallest denomination is a penny. The simple fact is that human action doesn't exist on a mathematical continuum... and theories that in fact rely on these continuums to prove their point are inherently incorrect. The best example of this are theories relying on graphs showing the tangent to a curve that intersect the curve at just 1 point; the problem here is that the whole theory relies on and assumes a line of indefinite points to depict human action - once you start putting gaps in the line (such as a step function), the theory will fall apart. 69.137.7.171 (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Two

"and of their aversion to the use of mathematics and statistics." This strikes me as weasel words. Are they ALWAYS averse to the use of math and statistics? Furthermore, it simply isn't true that AS economists rarely put stats in their essays--it happens all the time. We shouldn't give the reader the impression that AS is the "anti math and stats" school of economics because it simply isn't true.

This is in the source cited. Did you read the quote in the cite? LK (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't mean AS actually have an "aversion to the use of mathematics and statistics". I can change lede to reflect this perception. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 November 2011
Who cares if they are "always averse? How does that change a single thing about them being significantly averse to the use of econometrics? BigK HeX (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't. The claim is that they are averse, which suggests they are always averse. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 November 2011
Unless a person is illiterate, the claim is that they are AVERSE. You and you alone are the one substituting some "always avoid" meaning. The wording is an accurate reflection of the source, as LK had it. BigK HeX (talk) 04:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
If I say "Bob is averse to spiders", aren't you going to assume he's always averse to spiders? Byelf2007 (talk) 15 November 2011
Yeah, but since I know the meaning of averse, that isn't the problem you seem to think it is. Averse does NOT mean "always avoid without fail." BigK HeX (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I know what averse means. My point is that the sentence as is implies they're averse to using mathematics and statistics for EVERYTHING, as in "use of mathematics and statistics [end of sentence, without any additional context]". The clear implication is that they're averse the use of mathematics and statistics for whatever, even including arguing things like the recession of 1920 ended quickly because of a lack of government intervention (and then they start citing their statistics). This happens all the time with AS essays. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
Again ... you write as if averse means "avoid without fail." Just because Austrians use math occasionally is not evidence that Austrians aren't averse to its use. BigK HeX (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Again, the sentence, as is, implies that AS economists are averse to the use of mathematics and statistics IN GENERAL, not just FOR STUDYING ECONOMICS. And, it's not true that they use stats "occasionally" for studying economics anyway. Go ahead and read Mises Institute articles on contemporary economic developments and see how often they cite statistics. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011

Three and Four

I'm not sure what's wrong with the Murphy links. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 November 2011

This is discussed in the section above. LK (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Where? Also, from WP:VERIFY--"Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form)" "In general, the BEST [emphasis mine] sources [not necessarily the only sources] have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments" And from WP:Identifying reliable sources--"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts OR [emphasis mine] with no editorial oversight."
So how do these links not meet criteria? None of them have a reputation for being inaccurate. The murphy site may be questionable, but the Mises Institute certainly has a professional structure. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 November 2011
You're seriously asking how a little-known self-published blog post has a reputation for fact-checking and analyzing arguments? BigK HeX (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not a blog, it's an institute--it doesn't just publish online, it's also publishes it's materials in periodicals that get mailed out.
Regardless, a blog, as I understand it, is just a site with info that gets updated regularly (I might be wrong about this). Anyway, I'll refer you to the next section of this page. Also, you seem to be implying that if a blog is little know, then it simply MUST NOT be able to have a reputation for fact-checking and analyzing arguments among those who are familiar with it. I don't see how this is the case. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 November 2011
Who cares what Mises does with its articles? The source you want to use is a Mises Daily BLOG post. Stick to discussing that, instead of red herrings. BigK HeX (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
You said "You're seriously asking how a little-known self-published blog post has a reputation for fact-checking and analyzing arguments?" The implication of this seems to me to be that a "little know blog post" [I removed the self-published one] cannot have a reputation for fact-checking and analyzing arguments. Not only is this obviously not true, I was also pointing out that it isn't necessarily limited to the internet. If you're saying anything on the internet can't be reliable, then this would mean something that isn't well know that was originally not published online becomes unreliable the moment it gets online. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
As to the Murphy bit ... the WP:BURDEN is on you to show that his little-known blog post passes RS. Even beyond that, one would have to be extremely careful in using it to avoid violating NPOV with such a non-notable source. BigK HeX (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
How is it non-notable? Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011
HOW IS IT NOTABLE? Stop trying to shift the burden of proof, and ask people to prove a negative. BigK HeX (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not shifting the burden, because I've already explained why I think it is. You, however, have not provided any arguments in response. Apparently you didn't read the part where I said it's notable because Paul Krugman (very notable) wrote about it in the New York times (very notable). This therefore makes the post very notable. Do you think this fails to make it notable? If so, why? Please read my comments before posting. Byelf2007 (talk) 16 November 2011

Use of the adjective "Mainstream"

This entry is extremely biased against the Austrian School. As evidence, I submit that the adjective "mainstream" is used in contrast to it 23 (!) times. Allow the public to form their own opinions without all the spin. It's shameful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.186.164 (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

#6 9 mar 12 To Whom It May Concern

I'm an "idiot" so I may be doing this wrong. I think the guy below may even be referring to my edits. Well, I'm sick and tired of reading this article only to be told 3-4 times that "mainstream economists think this is wrong." Who gives a flying f--k what "mainstream economists" think? The ONLY situation in which "mainstream economists" should be mentioned in this article, is when their ideas and policies are being directly compared/contrasted, in an unbiased manner, to the Austrian School. Starting off a subsection with an assertion like "mainstream economists think this is all wrong" is unnecessary and UNHELPFUL. I'll check back on this article periodically and I will continue deleting these type of statements whenever I see them. Continue reverting my edits if you like; you'll be at it a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.40.237 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please use a more constructive language then this rant? Do you have any proposals for a rewritten text instead of the one you don't like? Night of the Big Wind talk 16:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
A better question would be, could you please explain why it's necessary to beat the reader over the head with the idea that mainstream economist don't agree with this theory? Are there also numerous bold statements and warnings in the Evolution article that mainstream religious groups don't agree with the theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.40.237 (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is supposed to be what one would see if one averages together everything written about the Austrian school in reliable sources, weighted by the quality of the source. Since almost all reliable sources are mainstream sources, one should see mainly the mainstream view of the Austrian school.
Think of Wikipedia as one huge hyperlinked book which starts on one page, but is hyperlinked down to sub-pages, and sub-pages of sub-pages (like a tree with a trunk, branches and leaves). Every part of Wikipedia has the same viewpoint, the neutral point of view. Articles expand on a particular topic, and sub-articles expand it further, always with appropriate weight for all topics covered under the under the article title. This particular article can be thought of as a sub-article of theschools of economic thought article, which is in turn a sub-article of the economics article. Every one of these articles describes the topics mainly from the mainstream viewpoint, because by definition, that is the predominant viewpoint held by the economics profession.
LK (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

#6 9 mar 12 On the latest (roughly) "you can't put AS argument after Keynesian argument" edits

To Whom It May Concern

I'm not a "wiki head" so I may be doing this wrong. I think the guy below may even be referring to my edits. Well, I'm sick and tired of reading this article only to be told 3-4 times that "mainstream economists think this is wrong." Who gives a flying f--k what "mainstream economists" think? The ONLY situation in which "mainstream economists" should be mentioned in this article, is when their ideas and policies are being directly compared/contrasted, in an unbiased manner, to the Austrian School. Starting off a subsection with an assertion like "mainstream economists think this is all wrong" is unnecessary and UNHELPFUL. No, it doesn't get any more helpful by attaching a few random names I haven't heard of ("Well Joe Duffy thinks....") to the assertion. If your sources aren't being used to make an actual argument (and they shouldn't, in an ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRY), they are unwanted here.

I'll check back on this article periodically and I will continue deleting these type of heavily biased statements whenever I see them. Continue reverting my edits if you like; you'll be at it a long time.

"Stop my vandalism"? You make me sick. I'm fighting for transparency and unbiased articles. Only on Wikipedia would that be considered "vandalism." Adding statements to the talk page isn't considered "vandalism", and I'll thank you to stop deleting mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.40.237 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, for this declaration of intent to editwar to enforce your version, I will protect the page to prevent you from editing it. Please consider methods of dispute resolution to resolve the issue. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Cool. You'll need to go ahead and make the protection permanent. Choose to see it as an "editwar" if you like. Sorry, I don't play your little wikipedia politics games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.40.237 (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Following the rules, i.e. Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, is no more of a "politics game" than following the traffic rules when driving your car is. It's a simple necessity to maintain some degree of order in an open project like this.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

#6 9 mar 12 Not up to Wikipedia Standards

Rather than an article objectively explaining Austrian School of Economics, the entire article is a straw man. It's not all one sided, as the criticism section has been heavily developed, but the article on a whole sounds pretty bad.

Furthermore, comparisons between AS and other economic thoughts are logical fallacies. At the very beginning of the article, it compares itself with other thoughts by saying modern economic thought uses models, and therefor such economists believe that they can exactly simulate an economy through mathematics, but AS excepts the impossibility of predicting financial and economic markets.

This is an untrue generalization for both modern and austrian thoughts and there are way better ways to compare economic thoughts than throwing straw man arguments into the mix.

Throughout the article, it mentions "the majority", "Some" or "There are people" etc, without specifying "who" or according to whom. It's a classic case of extreme subjectivity when people throw out phrases with little or no citing. This is especially the case in the criticism section.

I suggest putting a banner on the front explaining that the article is not up to wikipedia standards for such an important topic, especially considering this will get a lot of hits during the election.

Charlesblack (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

RE: "Throughout the article, it mentions "the majority""
See WP:DUE. BigK HeX(talk) 13:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
From non-negotiable policy, "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." BigK HeX(talk) 13:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree, Whereas mainstream economists generally use economic models, when did free markets fall out of the mainstream? the concept has been around since adam traded eve for an apple. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Austrian economics is outside the mainstream not because they support free markets (so did Milton Friedman) but because they reject the applicability of empiricism to social sciences. TFD (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
do you have a source for your claim? nothing supporting "outside mainstream" in current article sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't bother replying to this because I didn't want to feed the IP troll. I don't think we need to feel obligated to respond to every post on here regardless of how bad it is. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 January 2012
The article says, "From the middle of the 20th century onwards, the Austrian school has been considered outside the mainstream of economic thought.... Mainstream economists are generally critical of methodologies used by modern Austrian economists. In particular, the Austrian method of deriving theories has been criticized by mainstream economists as being a priori or non-empirical." Sources are provided. Could you please read the article before making assertions about what it does or does not say. TFD (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you talking to me? I was just saying that that Charlesblack's complaint was that the article says AS isn't mainstream, which is true, so there's really no point in arguing with this guy (and this is coming from an AS user). There are plenty of people who post stuff on talk so silly that I'm convinced they're either doing it (1) to waste our time or (2) that they can't be reasoned with (or both). Byelf2007 (talk) 24 January 2012
What a naive, self centered moron you are, Byelf. Yeah, we all live such boring lives, so we must be wasting our time "trying to waste yours" -OR- we're all just clueless idiots because we disagree with your par-for-the-course ridiculously obtuse viewpoint. It's Wiki Nazis like you who make this site the festering crap it's become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.45.179 (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I was talking to Darkstar1st (see the indents, although they are sometimes hard to follow). TFD (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Bezemer, Dirk J (June 2009). ""No One Saw This Coming": Understanding Financial Crisis Through Accounting Models". University of Groningen, SOM Research and Graduate School. Retrieved 2011-09-22.
  2. ^ Krugman, Paul (4-7-2010). "The Conscience of a Liberal: Martin And The Austrians". The New York Times. Retrieved 9-21-2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austrian_school_of_economics/Archive_6&oldid=1146726443"