Talk:Austrian school of economics/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Mises/inflation/Krugman

I have some questions/comments on this topic.

1) Was Mises' view really that price inflation follows as a result of increase in MB, regardless of whether it circulates? What we have now is: "In Mises' view, inflation is the result of policies of the government or central bank which result in an increase in the *circulating* money supply". [emphasis mine]

2) I'm still not sure Krugman's essay is actually a criticism of Mises. [see above]

3) Even if this is Mises' view, I'm still not sure Krugman's essay is remotely plausible, and, therefore, worthy of being in the article:

He says that the model is invalidated because there's very little price inflation despite the large increase in MB. Well, suppose there would be price deflation without the MB increase. Therefore, the MB increase *did* increase price inflation. I don't think Mises ever said "There will be *net* price inflation if MB goes up regardless of anything else going on". As in, if absent MB increase the price inflation rate is negative-5 (or price deflation of 5), and then MB increase leads to price-inflation of 2, are we to conclude that MB did not increase price inflation because it is low? Of course not.

4) I'm pretty sure there are self-described Austrians who have nuanced disagreements w/ Mises on this issue, so we should explore that and consider having the inflation section altered to reflect the views of all Austrians and not just Mises in particular.

5) If it's the case that (all) Mises' views on inflation are not necessarily Austrian, then I believe it would make sense to not include Krugman content--it would be a criticism of a theory of an Austrian, but not an 'Austrian theory'. Byelf2007 (talk) 4 December 2012

In nutshell this is the central economic topic of daily discussion in the USA and Europe in 2012: Will expansion of the money stock inevitably lead to inflation? Mises says yes, inevitably. Krugman produces a counterexample. I don't know of anyone who self-labels "Austrian" but still favors current Fed monetary policy or TARP. Anyway, Krugman has repeatedly addressed this criticism in various forms to the Austrians. It's kind of a hobby for him.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You did not address my question.

Did Mises say, "it's impossible for net price deflation to occur if the 'money stock' expands", or, did he say "price inflation will be higher/price deflation will be lower *than would have occurred otherwise* if the 'money stock' expands", therefore meaning that Krugman is blatantly misrepresenting Mises' views? I'm pretty sure it's the latter, and, therefore, Krugman's critique is not intellectually honest, as in it is attacking a straw man, which is definitely a hobby for him.

Furthermore, I know for sure that Mises said that price deflation occurs (as in prices going down vs. counter-factual, not net price deflation) when the malinvestment bubble bursts. Therefore, it makes sense that he'd say there would be little inflation today: the malinvestment bubble bursting and the money stock expansion would mitigate one another's effects on prices/cancel each other out. As in, Mises made his point without taking into account whether or not there's a bubble bursting, because such a thing could occur, or not occur, whilst the money stock expands. Did Mises ever say "If the money stock expands while there's a huge malinvestment-driven bust then there will still totally be high inflation, like as high as if the huge malinvestment bubble never occurred, like whether or not there's a malivestment bubble bursting will have no effect on prices whatsoever".

Did that happen? Because I'm pretty sure that didn't happen. I'm not going to go along with the inclusion of a 'critique' of anything on this site if it's clearly not on the level. Byelf2007 (talk) 4 December 2012

Bylef, please read the material in the inflation section which summarizes Mises' view. Now Krugman, who is a legitimate source, explicitly criticises this view. Regardless of your opinion on the subject or whether Krugman is incorrect, the appropriateness of this comment for the "criticism" section is as straightforward as I can imagine. Both LK and I have placed this material in the article. Please reconsider your deletion and re-insert the last version of this in the criticism, inflation location. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I did. You're not addressing my points. Again: "In Mises' view, inflation is the result of policies of the government or central bank which result in an increase in the *****circulating***** money supply" [not taking into account whether or not there is a *****malinvestment bust*****]

It has not been demonstrated to me that Krugman is not attacking a straw man. Byelf2007 (talk) 4 December 2012

My friend, you are edit warring. Please undo your last deletion of my text. I appreciate your interest in Austrian economics, but you are simply mistaken about this. Moreover, Krugman clearly states that he is criticizing the Austrian view so your opinion of whether he misunderstands that view does not invalidate his criticism. Please re-read the article and read Mises' Money and Credit. Please undo your last deletion of Krugman's criticism. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This is getting old. If I'm wrong, okay, and I would need to be persuaded of that with *arguments* which *address my arguments* to arrive at that conclusion. I don't care how much I have to revert--every time someone 'argues' with me (when they don't address my arguments and/or make their own), I always win, because mere assertions don't cut it on this site.

Mises said that the expansion of the money supply will necessarily lead to an increase in price-inflation/decrease in price-deflation *relative to the counter-factual of not expanding the money supply*. As in, if you expand the money supply, there will be *more* price inflation or *less* price deflation as a result of that specific policy which will coincide with *whatever else* is going on in the economy which also has effects on prices.

Mises did *not* say "If there's an expansion of the money supply, there will be *net* price-inflation *no matter what else is happening*, even if there's technological-driven price deflation, or malinvestment bubble price deflation, or whatever else.

Furthermore, again, the source *you told me to check out* says "In Mises' view, inflation is the result of policies of the government or central bank which result in an increase in the *circulating* money supply".

Krugman said in his essay that the fact that there is *net* price inflation while there has been an expansion of the money supply disproves Mises, ignoring that Mises didn't say that, unless there's a source you'd like to show me--as in a quotation and not 'oh, just go read his book, it's in there somewhere, trust me', and also ignoring that, according to Mises, a malinvestment-driven bust causes price deflation (not *net* price deflation), and also ignoring that not all the new money is 'circulating' (so Krugman's argument about the expansion of the money supply is clearly disingenuous--he's not addressing how much of the new money is actually circulating in the economy, which is plenty relevant to Mises' views on inflation), but you have provided *no evidence* that Mises ever said the aformentioned, you only *asserted* that.

I explained this.

In response, you said, "Will expansion of the money stock inevitably lead to inflation? Mises says yes, *inevitably*. [emphasis mine] Krugman produces a counterexample." That did not address my points, and you did not demonstrate that this is Mises' view, that, inevitably, expansion of the money supply means *net* price inflation (which is what Krugman is saying). You just *asserted* that it's Mises' view.

And then I explained that.

Then, you said, "you are simply mistaken about this." That's an assertion, not an argument.

And then you said, "Krugman clearly states that he is criticizing the Austrian view so your opinion of whether he misunderstands that view does not invalidate his criticism."

So you argument is "Krugman says it's a criticism, so it is!" This makes what you think of this process very clear.

So him saying it's a criticism means it must be? We're not going to even consider the possibility that it isn't because he says so? We're not going to go over what Mises said to see if it matches up with Krugman's criticism? So we're going to include any 'criticism' on this site, as long as the author claims is a criticism?

Let me be clear: This type of issue has nothing to do with whether or not we agree with the criticisms--it is my opinion that Krugman's 'criticism' is not of ABCT/Mises' inflation view. You don't even have to go to another article to see editors taking this sort of stuff out. We already took out the "ABCT is invalid because there were recessions prior to central banking" because ABCT pertains to inflation-driven malinvestment, and, therefore, can occur without central banking. The people who made those 'criticisms' were just as adamant as Krugman that they were criticizing ABCT, I'm sure. That alone doesn't make it true.

And then you said, "so your opinion of whether he misunderstands that view does not invalidate his criticism".

I never said he 'misunderstands' the view, and it's not relevant whether or not he does. I said he *mispresents* the view, which therefore means it is not a criticism of it, which is plenty relevant to whether or not it's valid (in the sense that it addresses what it claims to, and not a straw man).

So here's a quick recap: I present a case that Krugman's 'criticism' misrepresents the view he claims to criticize, you say "But Mises said X" without demonstrating that he did and don't address any of my points, then I demonstrate that it's not true by going with the source you told me to which clearly states the money has to circulate (and not all of the new money is circulating), then you say "Oh, but Krugman says it's a criticism, so it is" again without addressing any of my points.

If you want this included, you need to show me the source which shows that Mises said what Krugman claims he said. In other words, you need to demonstrate to me that Mises said expansion of the money supply means there will be *net* price inflation no matter what else is going on, including if there is a malinvestment bubble bursting, which Mises said would cause price deflation (but not necessarily *net* price deflation), which happened to have occurred in 2007-2009. Byelf2007 (talk) 5 December 2012

Please revert your deletion. You're edit warring. This is the last time I'll address you on this.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Call it whatever you want--you're not addressing my points, which is pathetic. The burden is on the person who wants inclusion. Byelf2007 (talk) 5 December 2012

Look, we don't get to decide whether a criticism is right or wrong, whether it's 'fair' or not. For inclusion in the article, we just ask: is the argument made directly supported by the source (WP:NOR), and is the inclusion neutrally worded and with the proper weight given the notability of the source (WP:NPV). Byelf2007, your arguments need not be addressed by Specifico because they miss the point. The only thing we should care about is whether WP policies are being properly followed, and as far as I can see, they are. As Jimbo put it:

The specific factual content of the article is, in a sense, none of my business. My sole interest here is that the wiki process be followed and respected. Talking to me about physics is pointless, because it misses the point. ... I'm not much interested in "is it true or not" in this context. We could talk about that forever and get nowhere. I'm only interested in the much more tractable question "is it encyclopedic and NPOV or not"? And this question can be answered in the fashion I outlined above.

–Jimmy Wales September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list.[1]

LK (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Your facts are correct and your conclusion is not. There are arguments within a text which accurately describe a thing/topic which forms part of the analysis of an issue which is incorrect/not true/not factual and there are also arguments within a text which do not accurately describe a thing/topic which forms part of the analysis of an issue which is incorrect/not true/not factual. My position (at this point) stands. Byelf2007 (talk) 6 December 2012

You're still arguing that it's 'wrong'. That's besides the point. Please stick to Policy. LK (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"You're still arguing that it's 'wrong'." In what manner is 'wrong', according to you, in this context? You don't answer that question. The answer is relevant.

Did you just not read what I've written on this? I already said it's not relevant whether or not he is wrong--it's relevant whether or not it's actually a criticism of Mises' theory.

Let me be clear (I thought this 'went without saying'): someone could misrepresent a theory and present an argument against it which makes sense/is correct, and they could also correctly represent a theory and present an argument against it which does not make sense/is not correct.

If you admit that the statement "ABCT is wrong because it stipulates that inflation is caused by floating transparent extra-terrestrials in polka-dot overalls" should not be in the criticisms section of this page, then you are agreeing with me on this issue in principle, and, if you want inclusion, must therefore *demonstrate that Krugman's criticism does not misrepresent the Austrian theory he critiques*. No one has done this yet. Byelf2007 (talk) 6 December 2012

Krugman says its a criticism of Austrian school theory. Krugman is notable, that makes his criticism notable. You may claim that he misunderstands Austrian theory and is criticising a straw man, you may even be right. But that still doesn't let you exclude it.

Adopting a rule like "only allow criticisms that do not 'misrepresent' the theory/organization/person' will lead to proponents disallowing all criticisms from a page.

LK (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you didn't address my point on an example a 'critique' we wouldn't allow on this site.

"Krugman says its a criticism of Austrian school theory. Krugman is notable, that makes his criticism notable." Yes. It doesn't mean it's a criticism of Austrian theory just because he says it is.

"You may claim that he misunderstands Austrian theory and is criticising a straw man, you may even be right. But that still doesn't let you exclude it." Yes it does, because this site does not put criticisms up that obviously misrepresent relevant content. Perhaps we should put in every criticism no matter how obvious it is that it misrepresents the theory? This isn't complicated and it's site policy--we only have criticisms of the article subject in the criticisms section.

"Adopting a rule like "only allow criticisms that do not 'misrepresent' the theory/organization/person' will lead to proponents disallowing all criticisms from a page." You'll notice that every other criticism on this page does not misrepresent, and, in any case, your argument is not "This policy is against the rules" but "People will act bad as a result", which is both speculative and irrelevant. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 December 2012

Simplify tenets?

What if we eliminate the prefaces to the tenets? ("the belief/view/theory that...") So we'd have: "Economic events are best explained..." "The use of economic models..." "The belief that testability in economics..." Etc. I like this idea. It doesn't seem important for us to distinguish between a belief and a theory (they're all tenets) and this condensed the article (and I think readers would often find all the prefaces to be distracting and unnecessary. Byelf2007 (talk) 4 December 2012

Hi. I don't feel that this list is an adequate representation of the Austrian School approach, so that doesn't make things better. Also it re-introduces the prior confusion between a priori methodological stances and well-stated theories in Austrian thought.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't a methodological stance a theory? I'm not sure what the relevant distinction is: there is Austrian theory which comprises methodology and Austrian theory based on the methodology.

---Hi. No. Please research the meaning of "theory."'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

What if we divide the tenets into two sections? One, the methodology, and, two, the rest? That would make the distinction between the two very clear. Byelf2007 (talk) 5 December 2012

Frankly, I've always thought that having a list of tenets in the lead is a bad idea. Firstly, as a style issue, it looks odd, it isn't what we see in other articles about schools of thought, and it isn't supported by the MOS. Secondly, the lead is supposed to summarise the body of the article. I don't see anything like a super long list in the article, so there shouldn't be a shorter list in the lead to summarise it. I suggest, if it should be kept, to move the whole list into the body of the article. One or two sentences about it can remain in the lead. LK (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"I don't see anything like a super long list in the article"

That's because it's a summary of the methodology and theories sections. Byelf2007 (talk) 6 December 2012

LK, I think you're correct that the list would be less glaring if it were in the context of well-organized exposition in the body. However, the list has other problems. It reads like the recitation of the house rules in an initiation rite. It commingles points of methodology with points of theory but fails to give any operational links between the two species. Overall it has the look of a caricature taken from a quick read of the Mises Institute blogs and not much else. It's quite incomplete. It would be a tough chore to reconstitute the bullet points and redistribute them, integrated, within the body of the article, and I do not currently have an opinion as to whether that would be worth the effort. To the extent the points are significant they'll ultimately be covered in a well-written Austrian School article. Maybe we should get the list out of there and transfer it to the talk page for reference.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and I basically agree.

The problem, as I see it, is that there's no canonical 'this is the Austrian School' book ('existentialism' and 'libertarianism' have the same problem). In fact, perhaps there isn't any 'Austrian School' definition that could be both the organized exposition with operational links you would like to see and also be accurate at the same time. Like, we could do it for Mises, or Hayek, or Rothbard, who each have their own comprehensive views on economics or 'story' where all the Austrian tenets get 'linked up' in their own personal way, but when we're trying to do that in a way that encompasses all Austrians, I don't see how we can have a comprehensive view on economics/story--Austrians are, from what I've read, basically just united by the positions we have listed, or a very similar list (the term 'Austrian economics' came about in hindsight, an attempt to unify the various theories of economists which appeared to go well together/happened to agree with each other on a variety of things).

In other words, there are plenty of comprehensive views on economics which are Austrian, but trying to make a comprehensive view which is Austrian as such may be impossible because it would contradict at least one prominent Austrian (who disagree on how the Austrian positions are connected and/or the various nuances of what they mean).

Yes, having an article on an economic school of thought which is basically the recitation of the house rules in an initiation rite definitely sucks, but perhaps that's all the Austrian School really is--a group of economists who agree on several positions, but not on what connects all of them without it no longer being Austrian.

In fact, one might go as far as to say the Austrians aren't a 'school of thought' at all, as in, they don't have the theoretical cohesion necessary to be a school, nor have the theoretical cohesion of the vast majority of schools--most schools agree on a basic approach or story (so it would be very difficult to create a new brand of it), while the Austrians are more like "we believe in X, Y, and Z, and anything you can come up with that is a plausible way of connecting them works for us--just agree with us on the tenets, and throw in a tenet the vast majority of us disagree with, what would we care? It's all about that list baby". To say the Austrians are a school and/or have a comprehensive view/exposition/story is perhaps like saying the US and the USSR had the same ideology and long-term goals because they fought the Nazis together.

But I definitely would like it if we could make it work. If we do, I think it'd make sense to have a big re-write of the methodology and theories sections and keep a complete definition out of the lede (in favor of an uber-concise summary). I suppose a good place to start would be books which 'explain' Austrian economics. Byelf2007 (talk) 6 December 2012

Edit Warring ---- Byelf2007 Please Revert your recent edits

You are persistently edit-warring. You have been asked to stop on several occasions. Three editors have tried to undo your damage here. Kindly revert your recent edits that deleted properly sourced relevant material from notable economists. You are violating WP policy. I see that this has occurred on at least two previous occasions. [| Byelf2007 block log]

Please revert and take a breather. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

do not revert the article reads better minus trivial clutter, "and you know who else doesn't like..." Darkstar1st (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

do not revert The rule applies only when there is intellectually honest discussion--if someone puts obviously inappropriate content, we don't punish people for reverting that, no matter how often it occurs. And, in this case, no one has put forward a remotely plausible argument for inclusion, it's just (so far) "Krugman said so" and "it doesn't matter if it's true" (even though I never made that an issue).

Again, the burden is on those wanting inclusion, as in it is their burden to get consensus first. Just because someone puts forth an argument for inclusion on talk doesn't mean the content should stay on until someone opposed to inclusion persuades them otherwise. That burden is on the person who wants inclusion--they have to get consensus first. It takes more than "Oh, but I put an argument on talk, so now content has to stay there until you convince me (ignoring the burden), or, until someone put forth a counter-argument, in which case, there's no problem with them reverting (which is what I've always done--I never reverted without an explanation ; not how the process is supposed to work, just saying).

I'd also like to note that every single time (so far) someone has put forward an argument on talk for inclusion, they have invariably abandoned the argument once I respond to it. This clearly demonstrates how seriously LK is taking this process, even if we put aside that the burden is on those wanting inclusion to get consensus first. Byelf2007 (talk) 7 December 2012

Final warning: You have 3 separate instances of 3RR violation in the past few days. You've been directed to the relevant WP policy on the subject. Others have explained to you why no response to your talk messages is needed. You have built an extensive file on talk documenting your disregard of fundamental policy. Please revert the edits or we will have to have this adjudicated. Consider carefully whether that's what you choose.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion of the disagreement above. What is it? North8000 (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

North, to review, begin with "INFLATION" above and review edit comments and bylef's edit history.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure whether you are referring to the history here or the content issue. Speaking as someone who has, over a long time, said "please slow down" many times to Byelf2007, I can say that they are more of a fast moving editing tornado who does a lot of mostly good work without talking much than a warrior. If I may suggest, could the involved folks elucidate the core issues in talk in a way that could lead to a settlement of tis? North8000 (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Starting with "INFLATION" on the talk page and the associated edits in the article. Whatever your previous experience with this editor, the upshot is that Byf is doing nothing good in this instance and has been treated with ample courtesy and the time has come when he must follow community policy.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see 'inflation' section, where I've responded to every objection and my last post has (so far) not been responded to. Also notice my points in this section have (so far) not been responded to. I'm not sure where the rule is that people can get content included while they do not respond to objections. Byelf2007 (talk) 8 December 2012

Instead of edit war talk page messages and reverts that do not contain edit summaries, I suggest WP:M for these disputes. Why? When I see comments that SHOUT and cajole the opposing editor to read policy, etc., I see that the discussion is not engendering cooperation. I'm looking at the edit history, and not the content of the edits (which does not impact my opinion). Please stop.--S. Rich (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Byelf2007 has tried many arguments here, some of them have some validity, but none of them are based on Wikipedia policy. One attempt to block the Krugman content is that Krugman was wrong (presumably because Byelf 2007 is right). Another argument is that what Krugman criticizes is not (how Byelf2007 defines) the Austrian School. These arguments can be answered by a very basic familiarity with Wikipedia's core policies. At this point, I consider Byelf's objections to be clearly devoid of merit, the Krugman material should be kept, and the edit warring on behalf of Byelf's meritless arguments should be reverted, and the responsible editors warned. — goethean ॐ 03:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Krugman, commenting on the antithesis of his own philosophy on the Krugman blog, and you are wondering why several find his musings irrelevant here? would it be too much to ask for an additional source other than his own blog to include the controversial material? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where I stand on inclusion/exclusion, but arguing that policy mandates or supports forcible inclusion of a blog item is two big steps/errors away from reality. Actually it leans the other way supporting removal because it is not sourced by a wp:rs. North8000 (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"One attempt to block the Krugman content is that Krugman was wrong (presumably because Byelf 2007 is right)"

I never made that argument.

"Another argument is that what Krugman criticizes is not (how Byelf2007 defines) the Austrian School. These arguments can be answered by a very basic familiarity with Wikipedia's core policies. At this point, I consider Byelf's objections to be clearly devoid of merit, the Krugman material should be kept, and the edit warring on behalf of Byelf's meritless arguments should be reverted"

I see opinions here. I do not see a justification for the position of inclusion. Byelf2007 (talk) 9 December 2012

The argument using WP:RS is simply nonsense, to be extremely polite about it. Krugman's writing are of course an RS for Krugman's opinions. Byelf2007's argument, again, shows no familiarity with Wikipedia policy. Your personal opinion is not a veto on all of the content in this article. Nowhere is it written that you need to personally approve all content for this article. Please read Wikipedia policy before removing well-sourced content. Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner in economics. His criticism of the Austria school is notable. Full stop. — goethean ॐ 16:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"The argument using WP:RS is simply nonsense, to be extremely polite about it. Krugman's writing are of course an RS for Krugman's opinions. Byelf2007's argument, again, shows no familiarity with Wikipedia policy."

I never said it's not a reliable source.

"His criticism of the Austria school is notable."

I never said it wasn't.

My issue with inclusion is that it's not actually a criticism of Austrian theory. I said this repeatedly. You apparently did not read what I wrote. Full stop.

"Your personal opinion is not a veto on all of the content in this article."

That's true, I never said otherwise, and you've not provided any argument for why you believe I have conducted myself as if I believed this, you merely asserted it, much like you've asserted I said things I didn't and didn't bother to mention the thing I've actually said repeatedly. It's also true that someone who wants inclusion can't get it with just their personal opinion. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 December 2012

Notability concerns which subjects may have articles created about them. It has no relation to whether someone's comments should or should not be included in an existing article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Editors must at least cite POLICY based reasons to remove cited material that is neutrally worded, relevant and directly related to the topic. WP:IDONTLIKEIT type arguments just don't cut it. It doesn't matter whether you think a critique is unfair, untrue, misrepresenting the view criticised, suffers from a logical fallacy or is attacking a straw man. The only thing that matters is: i) is the source reliable and relevant? ii) is the inclusion properly and accurately reflecting the cited material? iii) is it neutrally worded and included with the appropriate weight? As long as is the relevant content policies: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPV are being followed, the material should stay. As I have seen no policy based arguments for removing the material, I am reinstating it. Cited material from a reliable source that is relevant should not be removed without citing a policy based reason. LK (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot of faulty policy-based arguments, and nobody really talking about the core points; why it would be goo to have it in or out. There is no policy that mandates a particular inclusion, nor a policy that says that you need a policy based reason to remove something. North8000 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There is AFAIK, no policy about what MUST be in an article. However, NPV requires us to include all relevant material with due weight. The question is: does the article include neutrally and with proper weight the argument that 'the (lack of) inflation experienced since 2008 is incompatible with Austrian views of inflation'? LK (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The policy objection is relevance.

LK: "all relevant material" Yes, and this has to be established first. My argument is that it is not relevant because Austrian theory is misrepresented.

The burden is those wanting inclusion. Those wanting inclusion, must, for starters, demonstrate relevance, which, in this case, means demonstrating that Krugman does not misrepresent Austrian theory regardless of whether or not his critique makes sense. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 December 2012

Burden for inclusion is for providing sources. Once sources are provided, the burden is satisfied. Arguing that it misrepresents is not an argument of irrelevance. LK (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so if Krugman wrote an article where he said: "The Austrian School of economics argues that we should only figure out economic policy praying to the Gods while we're all super baked.", we ought to include that in the article?

"Arguing that it misrepresents is not an argument of irrelevance." So I can go put a reliable source on the Aristotle page that claims he was a woman from the planet Zytar? Byelf2007 (talk) 10 December 2012

Edit conflict, just adding to my previous note. I don't have the context of specific expertise to weigh in. However I would have the following questions:

• Is that a significantly held viewpoint, vs. a cherry-picked quote?
• It seems spotty, with vague uses of jargon to the point that it really doesn't communicate to a reader, except those with enough specialized knowledge that they don't need to read the article. :-) If it were to stay in, could someone write a more communicative version? North8000 (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Krugman is a notable economist, that makes his critiques notable. Much more so than the non-notable fluff such as this (who is Sean Rosenthal anyway?) that you and byelf apparently consider notable enough for inclusion. LK (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"Krugman is a notable economist, that makes his critiques notable." Yes. You've said that before. I've also explained how I've never said otherwise and that it's not relevant. See my arguments above, which I first made days ago, which still have not been responded to.

"who is Sean Rosenthal anyway?..." This is totally off topic. It's like you're implying "Well, you think this other content should be in, but it's not appropriate for inclusion, so I guess we'd better let the Krugman content in also". Or is this just a general statement of my hypocrisy? That's not what we're here to discuss. If you have a problem w/ Rosenthal content, bring it up for discussion in its own section. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 December 2012

Austrians against "probability"??

Probability means many things. No Austrian would argue you shouldn't use probability analysis to decide the returns on casino gambling or cards or roulette or horse races or a thousand other economic/financial topics. Mises was against the inappropriate use of probability in economic modelling because mainstream economists use probability in finance as if it's "objective" reality rather than a reflection of subjective ignorance. The current version is appallingly bad because it completely misses the critique Austrians make about modern financial modelling. I can't make it any clearer than this. Can somebody read the references provided and confirm and add these back in please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.151.75 (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you propose as a solution? I'm not what I'm supposed to get out of reading these sources that you expect us to.

"No Austrian would argue you shouldn't use probability analysis..." I think you're misunderstanding--the article basically says you shouldn't use it to analysis human behavior, which is not quite the same thing (roulettes and horses don't have free will). Byelf2007 (talk) 10 December 2012

I assume you mean "I'm not sure what I'm supposed...". I've tried to be as clear as possible in the edit I made. Another suggestion: Someone else reads the references and summarizes them. No one is arguing that the current version accurately reflects the Austrian position. Some people are "puzzled" by my summation of the references which clearly state the Austrian position and have therefore deleted the references. OK, well, someone should come along and more accurately summarize the references. If you don't understand the references, then why not just leave my statement in as the best summation (so far) that we can come up with? You can't say "I don't understand you" and therefore delete referenced material. That is dumbing down articles to the lowest level.

"someone should come along and more accurately summarize the references" I'm afraid you'll probably have to do that--you're passionate about this idea and no one else seems to be.

Could you please post a proposed edit (w/ some 'more accurate summarization of references') with justifications? Thanks. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 December 2012

I agree no one seems to care. So I've added back in my references. I can't believe this is in any way controverial. You can check the refs yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenericAnonIP (talk • contribs) 04:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

'Most economists'

Too much use of the above term. I have fixed one and made an attempt at the other. How do we know what "most economists" say or think? We don't. But we can quote somebody who has made a survey of economists to find out. Or quote somebody who claims that most economists think or say something-or-other. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It will probably take a while to fix em all (source, or change phrase). Byelf2007 (talk) 16 December 2012

Inflation and ABCT sections

According to WP:Summary style, when we have a parent article and child article(s), the parent article should not contain an overly detailed treatment of the subject; instead, detailed treatment should be reserved for the child article. The parent should provide "a summary of the subtopic's article", similar to how the lead section provides a summary of rest of the article. Currently, the sections on inflation and ABCT are about half the size of their respective sub-articles.

For the ABCT section, which is huge, I suggest as a goal to trim it down to a few paragraphs, merging information as necessary to the main article on ABCT.

For the inflation section, the section is mainly filled with quotes, which also contradicts the guidance in WP:Quote. I suggest paraphrasing the quotes and trimming down the verbiage.

See also Wikipedia:Splitting about what we are supposed to do. LK (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Aside from excessive length, the ABCT section suffers from the more significant problems of being incoherent, garbled, and inconsistent with the theory as stated by Mises and Hayek. I suggest interested parties attempt to write a new version, properly referenced, from scratch on the talk page. I think it will be more fruitful to work from that than to remove the OR, Synth, and errors from the current version. Also I suggest we leave Rothbard's bells and whistles out of this for the time being and just focus on a clear statement of how cheap credit can lead to a distortion of the capital structure and subsequent contraction. '''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Rothbard edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following comment was left on my talkpage. IAW WP:BRD, I think the best place to resolve the question is here, on the article talkpage.

Hello Srich. As I stated in my edit comment, that bit about Rothbard is not a statement or assertion of a theory. If you have a statement of Rothbard's theory which gives a theory fulfilling the points I deleted, that can go in the "assertions" section. However the Rothbard comment as you re-inserted it is no more than an opinion or comment that leads nowhere and should not be at the beginning of an exposition of ABCT. Rothbard was not an originator or even a major figure in Austrian business cycle theory and should not be unduly cited at the introduction to such an exposition, which should feature Mises and Hayek among others. I'd hoped I'd made this clear with my comment. Please consider removing or relocating that text. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is talking about this edit: [2] --S. Rich (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hahn Quote

TO: EconomicIllusions... The Austrian School is not the only body of economic theory or practice that rejects statistical predictions. Hahn was criticizing a particular body of mainstream Keynesian econometric policy-oriented prediction. He says nothing in that quote about supporting any other view or any part of Austrian theory. Many schools and theories reject quantitative statistical inference as the basis for policy. The justification you stated for your edit war is false. Please self-revert and by all means please find additional material that is relevant and fits the context.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The quote we are contesting is this:

In 1952, Austrian School economist L. Albert Hahn stated: It is seldom realized that belief in the possibility of "scientific" business forecasts, and the forecasting mania of our time, are comparatively new phenomena. Until about 1930serious economists were not so bold – or so naïve – as to pretend to be able to calculate the coming of booms and depressions in advance. It would not have fitted into their general view on the working of a free economy. They considered the economic future as basically dependent on unpredictable price-cost relationships and on the equally unpredictable psychological reactions of entrepreneurs. Predictions of future business conditions would have seemed to them mere charlatanry, just as predictions, say, regarding the resolutions of Congress two years from now... The basic error of the whole approach lies in the fact that the causative link between objective data and the decision of the members of the community are treated as mechanical. But men are still men and not automatons.

First, the quote has been on the page for months, perhaps a year. It's up to those who want it deleted to justify the deletion given it's been on the page without dispute for so long. Second, name one other significant school of economics that rejects statistical methodology. You say there are others?! I consider that wrong. Please show me the link to a school that explicitly rejects that method on Wiki or elsewhere. If it's a prominent part of the school, it will be part of their "methodology" section. If you can't then clearly this discussion can only be put in an Austrian context, as that's all he could conceivably be talking about. I accept (if the third point didn't exist) that if there were many other schools that held the same position this quote could not be put just in an Austrian context. But I'm confident you have no link, no reliable reference that states something like "there are many schools of economic thought that reject use of statistical methods in economics, including Austrian, Martian, and Venusian economics...." Third, Hahn is EXPLICITLY mentioned as an Austrian here. So (1) he is Austrian (2) he's trying to defend their methodology and criticize the other schools' use of statistical methods and (3) it's a directly relevant quote that neatly summarizes the Austrian position and its criticism of Keynesian economics. It should stay in. Simple. EconomicIllusions (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the article to the pre-edit war version. It don't matter to me which is correct, but the back and forth is disruptive. Develop a consensus, please.--S. Rich (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hahn quote originally added by sock of banned user

I thought it looked familiar. From here,[3][4] you can see that the Hahn quote was originally added and edit warred over by FRB123, the sock of banned user Karmaisking. This pretty much shows (along with his other behaviors) that EconomicIllusions is yet another sock of Kik. I am reverting per WP:Deny. LK (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC Krugman critique about inflation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Paul Krugman's critique about Mises and Rothbard's views on inflation outlined in this Krugman piece[5] (specifically, that the tripling of money base since 2008 has not produced the high inflation predicted by the theory) be included in this article? LK (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• In principle, yes. I'm not sure the text that was in play over the last couple of days is the best representation (it depended too heavily on a quote, imo); also, it would help to know whether there are other sources that help bolster the conclusion that Krugman's view here is important (I suspect there are). I imagine Krugman is not the only economist who has made this observation -- and so perhaps a section on inflation should be more general, not resting on Krugman's views alone. Anyway, in general the issue seems important (a significant historical "test" of Austrian theory) and it should be addressed here in some way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: there is no argument here for inclusion. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 December 2012

Don't tell me that my argument is different from what I say it is. I am arguing for inclusion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not say your argument is different from what you say it is. I said you did not have one.

So what's your argument? And, where is it the paragraph starting with "in principle, yes"? Byelf2007 (talk) 10 December 2012

It's in the paragraph starting with "in principle, yes". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

So what is the argument? Byelf2007 (talk) 11 December 2012

No. See above. Byelf2007 (talk) 10 December 2012

No, not in it's present form If this is a significantly held view, then then I WANT it included in the article. But right now I just see one comment from a blog, and which is so short and vague that, for a reader coming here to learn something (vs. knowing it all already) it really doesn't communicate or support what it is implying. And out of all of the heat above, other than faulty policy-based arguments, I'd seen only one real discussion of a reason for inclusion which is that he is a noted economist and he said it. That's a good point but not enough. I think that my views are similar to Nomoskedasticity's, except that I more directly answered the narrower particular question on inclusion/exclusion of the particular item in question. North8000 (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, silly. The arguments here have been of a very poor quality, and are based on several misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy. Much of the activity at this article could accurately be described as obstructionist and partisan. No valid reason to exclude the content has been offered, or, indeed, exists. The proposed content was written by a Nobel Prize-winning economist, and summarizes well an important criticism of the Austrian school. The proposed content can and should be improved, of course, but again that is no reason to exclude the content from the article. — goethean ॐ 14:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"No valid reason to exclude the content has been offered, or, indeed, exists." In your opinion. So, why is this the case (did you read my objection? would you like to respond to it?)

"The proposed content was written by a Nobel Prize-winning economist" No one is disputing that/its relevance.

"summarizes well an important criticism of the Austrian school" It is my opinion that it is not a criticism of the Austrian School. The burden is on those who want inclusion. You need to demonstrate that Krugman accurately describes Austrian theory in his article. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 December 2012

no in any form A week old blog rant from the most outspoken critic is hardly notable. since inflation did rise during this period, what is your definition of "high"? since most of the increases in monetary supply were very recent, and billions have been added in the week since Krugmans post, perhaps it is a bit early to declare low inflation? what is your definition of low? perhaps a better comparison would be the staggering 2236% inflation since the 1913 shift away from sound money. an ounce of silver will still buy the same weight of coffee, oil, lumber, labor as it did in 1913. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"A week old blog rant from the most outspoken critic is hardly notable." This is obviously nonsense--it's not a 'rant' and Krugman is plenty notable. And none of the other analysis is relevant to this debate--this analysis pertains to whether or not Krugman's criticism of what he describes as Austrian theory is correct or not, which is not relevant to whether or not the content should be included. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 December 2012

Ah, it's the argument from gold-buggery. — goethean ॐ 15:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

impossible to increase the supply of gold without great effort, not so for paper notes, which means the other notes will now be worth slightly less by definition. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you think that your uninformed ideological posturing has the slightest relevance to this conversation shows that you are completely ignorant of Wikipedia policy as well as of basic logic. — goethean ॐ 15:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If the viewpoint is significantly held, why not just get a second (better) source and put in a few informative summarizing sentences instead of just trying to fight in some poorly written sentences from a blog? North8000 (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The source is the New York Times. — goethean ॐ 16:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No For the reasons already given by Byelf2007. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously yes, there is no valid reason to exclude a Nobel laureate's view. I agree with what goethean said. If this were any other page, there wouldn't even be a discussion. FurrySings (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"there is no valid reason to exclude a Nobel laureate's view." ...from an article concerning economics regardless of the content of the view? So, if a nobel laureate says "The Austrian School believes that faeries..." we're to include that as well? Where's that rule on this site? Byelf2007 (talk) 11 December 2012

Site policy is that we are supposed to discuss the merits of the proposed content in good faith without bringing up idiotic, nonexistent counter-examples. — goethean ॐ 15:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

One, there's no response to my argument here (which is just being re-stated here--it still has not been responded to) and my 'counter-example' makes a very clear point.

Two, 'good faith' is not a carte blanche. When someone repeatedly ignores the arguments of the people they're opposing and keep bringing up arguments that demonstrate ignorance of site policy ("but he's a nobel laureate so it must be appropriate for inclusion!", etc.), I stop being cordial. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 December 2012

Question/comment from a 1/2 dummy. I don't really even understand what Austrian School is. I gather that in the areas of dispute it says that a baseless increase in the money supply will cause inflation. I find the Krugman blog (and material which sources it) to be suspiciously vague/scanty, and from an op ed in a blog. But if it expresses a more solidly established criticism, maybe it should be covered in a more solid form. It seems that Krugman is (implicitly) asserting that the "Board of Governor's Monetary Base" is representative of the overall money supply, and Austrian theory says that if it the supply goes baselessly (= our current situaiotn) up, there will be hyperinflation and so therefore, that that shows that the Austrian School is wrong on that point? And if so, have others said that? North8000 (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I tried to add another article which explained and responded to Krugman's article. My addition was, of course, reverted by Byelf2007. Stated rationale was: (no consensus yet) — goethean ॐ 21:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"I tried to add another article which explained...Krugman's article". The article you're referring to did not demonstrate that Krugman accurately characterized Austrian theory. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 December 2012

I suggest that you stop being deliberately obtuse and obstructionist. — goethean ॐ 22:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

North8000, Krugman has written about this issue more than once. Here's another post making the same argument,[6] but unfortunately engaging in some name-calling as well. There is also this article from the AEI that essentially argues the same thing.[7] (See bottom third of the article.) The trouble is that few mainstream economists write about Austrian school theories. However, given what we accept as sourcing in this article, these two should be enough. LK (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article by Shikha Dalmia,[8] a senior policy analyst at Reason Foundation, writing for Reason magazine. I'm not sure if that qualifies as RS. LK (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I just read all of those once. I'll need to read them again to build a picture with respect to the topic at issue. North8000 (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Another Krugman post where he argues the same point:[9]

Youtube video of Mike Norman, a wall street economist making the same argument.[10] (probably not RS)

In this article,[11] Richard Timberlake a retired professor of economics, argues against the Austrian view of inflation, but using the experience of the 1920s and 30s. We should probably add it somewhere.

Bruce Bartlett makes the same argument.[12]

LK (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the majority of those, taken one at a time, are problematic in some way. In most cases the "sources" are participants rather than coverers. I also don't know Austrian well enough to know whether they are arguing against the actual tenets vs. a straw man version of them and whether their definition of the money supply matches that of the Austrian's claims. But I think that together they show that there is a significant group of critics who make a claim along those lines. Specifically, asserting that events, especially a purported large expansion in the money supply without causing large inflation have shown that the relevant tenet of Austrian Economics is wrong. We should have some intelligent coverage of that. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

we all seem to be working on the assumption large inflation has not occurred. what is the def of large/high inflation? since most of the increases (currently 46b a month) are recent, is it a bit early to declare low inflation? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. From my limited angle, the gist of my comment was just that "people are saying this", not that what they are saying is valid. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

not valid indeed. if one starts at the beginning of expanding the money supply till now, the answer is absolutely yes, exponential inflation. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: As I've already explained, this isn't relevant: no Austrian theorist ever said "If you inflate the money supply there will necessarily be price-inflation", they said that there would be price-inflation *relative to counter-factual*. Have Ron Paul and Peter Schiff incorrectly predicted high inflation based on Austrian theory? Yes. Are they Austrian theorists (as in contributors?)? No. Did they base their predictions on Austrian theory? Yes. But economics is the study of people producing and exchanging stuff. If I interpret past economic behavior, I'm doing so on the basis on economic theory only. But if I use economic theory to predict the future, I'm also making assumptions about the future (like no one will invent cold fusion, etc.), so it makes no sense to say "Aha! Your predictions didn't work out, therefore the theory it's based on is incorrect; let's ignore all the assumptions you made about exogenous events." Byelf2007 (talk) 13 December 2012

The only thing of any relevance to this discussion is whether reliable sources say that the Austrian school's account of inflation has been criticized. You have been given plenty of reliable sources which indeed confirm that the Austrian School's account of inflation has in fact been criticized. There is nothing here to discuss. — goethean ॐ 18:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

They're all primary sources on that particular statement, but there is a lot of them and so I tend to not split hairs on that. Trying to summarize them puts us on the edge between summarizaiotn and O/R. What if just took the most detailed / least ranty of them and said that and put the gist of that one in attributed. I.E. "Mr. ABC said XYZ". North8000 (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"You have been given plenty of reliable sources which indeed confirm that the Austrian School's account of inflation has in fact been criticized." No, they confirm that their description of Austrian theory has been criticized. You're arguing that a reliable source which claims to criticize X should be included in an article on X regardless of whether or not it's actually criticizing X. In principle, it doesn't matter if the misrepresentation is slight or incredibly absurd--we don't put non-X content on an article about X and imply it's actually X at the same time. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 December 2012

This nonsense has no basis in Wikipedia policy. — goethean ॐ 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That's just an assertion. You have not demonstrated that this has no basis in Wikipedia policy, which includes the burden being on those wanting inclusion, and you need to get consensus. I'd say repeatedly not responding to my arguments and putting content back in just because you make an assertion even though you don't have consensus is nonsense. You can either (a) demonstrate that Krugman's critique was of Austrian theory, as in what it actually is and not just what someone said it was or (b) actually cite policy that refutes my argument (with the relevant pages) along with your explanation for why my particular argument is inconsistent with the page(s) you reference. If either is the case, why haven't you done it already? Byelf2007 (talk) 14 December 2012

Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (opinion pieces) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. That is to say, Krugman's post is a reliable source for Krugman's opinion. Krugman claims that he is talking about the Austrian School, and his writing is a reliable source for that claim. Your personal feelings that he is talking about a different topic are not relevant. Please stop edit warring over this incredibly stupid non-issue. — goethean ॐ 17:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As I have already explained, we do not put content on a page unless it is relevant to that page--it is my argument that Krugman's piece is not about Austrian theory. If it is not about Austrian theory, then it's not appropriate to have on this page, at least while implying that we're talking about a criticism of Austrian theory (having a 'common misconceptions' or 'interpretations' section is an entirely different matter), regardless of whether or not Krugman claims he is criticizing Austrian theory. If you admit that if a Krugman piece where he says "Austrians believe recessions are the product of the indigestion of extra-terrestrials from the planet Zytar and recommend the printing of currency of with pictures of greater novelty in response" could not be admitted in this page as a 'criticism' of 'Austrian theory', then you've agree with me that whether or it's an actual criticism of Austrian theory is relevant, in which case, you need to demonstrate that any serious Austrian economist ever said "If the money supply expands, there will be net-price inflation no matter what else goes on". Unless you're arguing that any piece by a notable author where they claim they are criticizing X should be put in? If so, where's the wikipedia policy page that backs you up?

I don't think I need to cite a page that explains that we only put relevant content on article pages. Can you find me the wikipedia policy that says we can imply something is relevant to the article even though it isn't (because someone notable asserts it is?). If you can't you have no case. Why not just show me the policy page that demonstrates that you're correct?

"Your personal feelings that he is talking about a different topic are not relevant." It's a position defended with arguments, not just 'personal feelings'. I've yet to see any argument on your end, however, other than, substantively, "It's not relevant whether or not the criticism is actually a criticism of the subject of the page, we should put it in anyway, as a 'criticism'. Please take my word for it." Byelf2007 (talk) 18 December 2012

-->Blyf, If yours were in fact the Wikipedia policy, we'd have to expunge most of the content attributed to Murray Rothbard and half of the "Mises fellows," whose writings often navigate a bizarre alien realm of fiction and fantasy.:)'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This gambit that you are using could be used to remove any content from any Wikipedia article, regardless of how well sourced the content is. "Oh, I think that this source is talking about something completely different from what it claims to be talking about. Therefore, I'm going to remove the content." It's bullshit, and I think that you know that it's bullshit.

This is getting old.

"This gambit that you are using could be used to remove any content from any Wikipedia article, regardless of how well sourced the content is." Yes. It could. Of course, in order for it to be a good change, that would occur only if someone has the arguments which make sense to justify their removing of content.

Your 'gambit', on the other hand, does actually justify keeping anything in as long as the author merely asserts they're actually talking about what they claim to be--that's your stated policy.

"It's bullshit, and I think that you know that it's bullshit." This says it all. After I repeatedly keep making my case and responding to every point, this is apparently all you have left. You've used foul language, merely made an assertion without any appeal to site rules, and put content back in without consensus which is a part of the site policy which you occasionally appeal to.

Your position is correct? You're taking this process seriously? OK. Why is it that (a) you keep putting content in, without consensus, in direct violation of site policy (b) you keep asserting your position is correct without showing me the policy page which vindicates your position (c) you are resorting to "This is just bullshit. You know it is. Just agree with me." ?

I will reiterate:

If you admit that if a Krugman piece where he says "Austrians believe recessions are the product of the indigestion of extra-terrestrials from the planet Zytar and recommend the printing of currency of with pictures of greater novelty in response" could not be admitted in this page as a 'criticism' of 'Austrian theory', then you've agree with me that whether or it's an actual criticism of Austrian theory is relevant, in which case, you need to demonstrate that any serious Austrian economist ever said "If the money supply expands, there will be net-price inflation no matter what else goes on". Unless you're arguing that any piece by a notable author where they claim they are criticizing X should be put in? If so, where's the wikipedia policy page that backs you up?

You have 2 options: respond to this and follow site policy, or quit. Byelf2007 (talk) 18 December 2012

Comment: This isn't, or shouldn't be, an issue of just whether to include the view of the redoubtable Krugman or not. This is rather an issue over whether things are being laid out in such a way as to educate the reader about the issues involved. On that point, I think it's misleading to create a "the Austrians have been proved wrong and the Keynesian critic Krugman proved right" appearance. In February 2009 Krugman declared that there was a "major risk of falling into a deflationary trap." Krugman at that time said "every percentage point by which real GDP fall short of potential tends to reduce the inflation rate by about half a point over the course of the year" and asked readers to "do the math" which predicted a 3.4% decline in inflation. What happened? 6 months later prices were HIGHER. 6 months later prices were YET HIGHER. 6 months after that... well you get the picture. Krugman's deflation never happened, but he doesn't let that stop him from saying someone else predicted significant inflation that failed to materialize. The bottom line here is that there should be something about the "Austrian" contentions about inflation not having been well established empirically, as opposed to suggesting the Keynesian critics have been vindicated in their criticisms.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Bdell, I think you have miscast the issue. Nothing in the cited remarks of Krugman is stating an alternative theory. Contrary to the misimpression held by certain editors here, the study of economics is not a football game wherein opposing sides try to score at the expense of the other. Scientific theory advances by posing conjectures and examining them to see whether they are refuted by factual evidence. All Krugman is saying is that the Mises statement cited in the article ('inevitable' and so forth) has been refuted by factual evidence. Krugman stresses that such refutation should lead to the revision of the disproved view to seek a more robust theory. Krugman is faulting those who do not advance the state of knowledge by engaging in this process. That is not a partisan statement. Science and social science is not about advocacy and argument. It's about conjecture and refutation. The Krugman statement is clearly made in that spirit. The opposition among some editors here does not appear to be in that spirit.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's quite such a bright line between the typical "Krugman statement" and "advocacy." He appears to have been less than aggressive in applying "this process" to himself, since I'm not aware of any "mea culpa" on his part concerning his deflation predictions or a variety of other inaccurate claims like his 1998 remark that "in retrospect it will seem clear that Japan's 1998 output gap was 8 percent or more." Just this past week he said there is a U.S. output gap of $900 billion, or close to 6%, despite the fact capacity utilization and job vacancies indicate the economy has come well off the bottom of the cycle to within 2% of potential. When Krugman starts acknowledging all the evidence that potential GDP has slid significantly since 1999 (and particularly since the 2007 reference point he insists on using for his output gap claims) it might be reasonable to claim that he's just all about the "science." But perhaps you agree with me that what the situation calls for is more of a noting of an absence of support as opposed to the presence of criticism, since the adversarial set up misses a lot of nuance. There may be unconsidered third factors, like lag times of a few years, leading either or both Krugman and the "Austrians" to be off on historical price level predictions.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

NORTH

Dear North: Thank you for your careful attention to this matter. I find that the current Krugman reference gives a very straightforward statement of this particular criticism. Krugman explicitly refers to the Austrian theory and illustrates his point by providing a graph of the monetary base vs. time. To relate it to this article, Krugman's statement should be compared to the statement at the beginning of the 'inflation' section of the article: "Mises believed that price inflation must inevitably result when the supply of money outpaces the demand for money." A careful reading of the balance of the 'inflation' section will reveal several further references to the Austrian theory that price inflation as the inevitable result of money-supply inflation. Not conditional, but simply inevitable. P.S. I'm thoroughly familiar with Mises' published works and I have never encountered the word 'counterfactual' in any of them. As LK has pointed out, there would be many more citable sources of criticism available except that Mises' view has been rejected by most economists since the 1930's. For background, consider the latest news: Roughly $100 billion of what Mises calls inflation. Decided by an 11 to 1 vote.[13] There has been surprisingly little controversy about this policy, hence little critical discussion of the underlying issue.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

--Instead of "current" I should have said "the version last edited by LK and subsequently deleted," to wit:

Economist Paul Krugman has argued against Austrian views on inflation. Krugman points out that in the period from 2007 to late 2012, the monetary base increased by more than 350% with concomitant price inflation of less than 3% per year. According to Krugman, "If you believe that... expanding credit will simply result in too much money chasing too few goods, and hence a lot of inflation... the failure of high inflation to materialize amounts to a decisive rejection of that [Austrian] model".

at {00:22, 7 December 2012‎ Lawrencekhoo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (77,742 bytes) (-20)‎ . . (→‎Inflation: actually Krugman calls it the Austrian view) (undo)}

'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"Mises believed that price inflation must inevitably result when the supply of money outpaces the demand for money." Yes, relative to the counter-factual. He never said "there will be net price inflation if the supply of money outpaces the demand for money no matter what else is going on, including the invention of cold fusion or a recession where businesses slash prices to liquidate their inventory. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 December 2012

As of 11 December

The vote is currently 5 in favor and 4 opposed, and it's been a couple days since a new argument for inclusion has been put forward. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 December 2012

Byf, I had expected you to understand that this discussion is not likely to progress to a constructive conclusion if it is considered a tug of war with play-by-play updates as to the latest numerical tally. I now ask you to desist from posting such statistics here and to delete the one above, In the alternative you should at least amend it to "5 to 4" since it is a matter of record here that both LK and I, having inserted the content numerous times, do support its inclusion. Thank you.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) It's expeditious for someone interested in the answer. (2) I don't see how it would influence the discussion in a negative way. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 December 2012

Review of arguments in favor

I'm using the last posted (as of now) arguments:

- SPECIFICO - "Krugman clearly states that he is criticizing the Austrian view so...[the] opinion of whether he misunderstands that view does not invalidate his criticism." [18:33, 5 December 2012]

- LK - "Krugman is a notable economist, that makes his critiques notable." [06:03, 10 December 2012]

- Nomoskedasticity - "In general, the issue seems important (a significant historical "test" of Austrian theory) and it should be addressed here in some way." [07:57, 10 December 2012]

- goetheanm - "Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner in economics. His criticism of the Austria school is notable" [16:44, 9 December 2012] "The proposed content was written by a Nobel Prize-winning economist, and summarizes well an important criticism of the Austrian school." [14:02, 10 December 2012]

- FurrySings - "There is no valid reason to exclude a Nobel laureate's view. I agree with what goethean said." [11:44, 11 December 2012]

---

Byfe, It is inappropriate and counterproductive for you to purport to represent the views of those who disagree with you. You should revert the above 'Review.'

You have stated your own positions numerous times, now please sit back and allow the process to advance.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Compromise idea?

Possible compromise idea? Select the most detailed/ credible sounding of those sources; let's call that Mr. XYZ. Make the statement about what some critics assert, then give an example. Make every assertion (including implied premises) clearly attributed, i.e. not in the voice of Wikipedia. So something like this (this is pro forma, of course I don't have the specifics) "According to some critics, recent expansion in the money supply without causing large inflation disproves one of the tenets of the Austrian school. For example, Mr. XYZ asserts that xxxx is a measure of the money supply, and asserts that it having gone up xxx% while inflation has gone up only xx% is a repudiation of Austrian School predictions." North8000 (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

North, I presume you've considered my comments under "NORTH" above. I still think that's tweaking Krugman's criticism, in the name of compromise, is inappropriate and borderline Original Research. The Krugman quote is simply asserting that there is a recent counterexample to Mises' (and most Austrians') categorical statement that monetary inflation leads to price inflation. We don't need to get into whether it's a "tenet," or to insert our own definitions or explanations. The beauty of the Krugman reference is that it can be quoted briefly and verbatim and relates directly to the Mises direct verbatim statement in the "inflation" section of this article. Are there any remaining editors who are not comfortable with the brief Krugman paragraph?'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you'd need to look thought the discussion on this to find the answer to your last question. I find the source to be evasively vague, primary, op/ed bordering on a rant, and from a blog. And the wording in the article implies, in the voice of wikipedia, that one of his assertions is fact (that his idea of the monetary base is that actual one) On the "blog" point, I don't split hairs when the quality looks good, but it doesn't here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"...counterexample to Mises' (and most Austrians') categorical statement..." If the current most popular version of Krugman's critique were included, I'd say it has to be in the 'general criticisms' section for this reason--it's not a criticism of Austrian economics (in our definition) even if most (not all or the vast majority) Austrians believe the inflation notion in question (it would get its own paragraph). Byelf2007 (talk) 22 January 2013

NORTH:

Hello North. I think that you are missing the point here. Krugman's piece in the Times prints a chart of the Federal Reserve Board's graph of the Monetary Base. Nobody has disputed that the Monetary Base has grown. It is well defined, and that is indeed the published history of that time series. The Times is a reliable source, so we may trust that the view expressed is in fact that of Paul Krugman. That's all we need to know for the purpose of stating Krugman's criticism. We do not have to agree on his view just as we do not have to agree on Mises' view. In what respect do you think the article's current statement of Krugman's view is vague? Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Specifico, there are many editors who object and have remained. a better question is why do you continue to edit war? i count several reverts and since you are relatively new to wp, i would like to remind you the 3rr is only a guideline, waiting until the time expires to continue your reverts is not acceptable. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked so that any who dissent could speak for themselves. As to my edits here: If you take a closer look you will see that you are mistaken, but we need not discuss that further.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

we have spoken, yet you continue to ram thru your edit. mistaken you have made several reverts here? impossible, the history shows it to be true, no need to discuss indeed. since you deleted my warning on your talk page, i know you are aware of your disruptive behavior, plz stop. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

As indicated previously,I think the cited Krugman piece, and the wording derived form it is problematic in many ways. However, IMHO the current state (as of this moment) appears to to include "point, counterpoint" type material which reduces that problem. Possibly with some tweaks with the summary of Krugman to avoid giving some of his premises the imprimatur of fact in the voice of Wikipedia, this might be OK? North8000 (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

North, in what way could a misstatement of fact occur? The NYT is a Reliable Source, so we know that the stated opinion is indeed Krugman's. For the same reason we can be confident that the graph of the Federal Reserve's monetary base is true to their statement. Krugman himself provides two sources for the inflation fact. I would appreciate it if you could be specific about what is vague or what unsubstantiated fact could be asserted by quoting Krugman? Thank you.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that there was a misstatement of fact. But I did say that it is problematic in many ways. It would takes some time and a lot of writing to detail that. If you are truly interested (vs. simply challenging my assessment) I would be happy to take the time to do it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings North. From what I currently understand, I don't share your view. However, my sole purpose in requesting that you state it in detail is to move this discussion toward a resolution that improves the article.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well then maybe we should start with a higher level view. IMHO what is relevant to the article and establishes weight for inclusion per weight under wp:npov is a statement along the lines that there is a significantly-held criticism that recent events disprove certain tenet(s) of the Austrian School. (So the relevant-to-the-article statement is that, not "Krugman said xxx") We don't have a secondary source that says that. We do have about 5 examples (primary sources) of notable people saying that. I proposed a compromise which is a carefully worded statement along the lines of the above, and then giving the best of the 5 as an example. IMHO the currently used example article is the worst of them Why not use a better one? North8000 (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - [from uninvolved editor invited by RfC bot] - Based on the single source identified in the RfC statement at top the answer is "no, because blogs are not reliable sources". There appear to be a couple of other sources also named above ... but is hard to provide input here without seeing a concise list of the sources, including brief quotes from the sources. Presuming, for the sake of argument, that there are a couple of reliable sources that specifically criticize the Austrian School (or at least criticise the school's theory of inflation) then yes, the article should include it. But WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV specifies that the material must name the critics (rather than make the statement in the encyclopedia's voice. North8000's suggestion at the top of the Compromise subsection above looks about right. --Noleander (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• NOLEANDER

Greetings Noleander. Please refer to the following statement on statements of opinion by a notable expert such as Krugman where the source is cited as to Krugman's own opinion [14]

Please reconsider your message above. Regards'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes

Paul Krugman's critique should be included in this article.--Fox1942 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reliable sources

To help craft an addition of an 'Austrian view of inflation' critique to the article, here are some (possibly) reliable sources about this argument by Krugman:

• CNBC
• CNBC
• WSJ
• Truthout
• The Global Investor Newsletter
• Krugman blog
• Krugman blog

Other critics (not Krugman):

• AEI
• Shikha Dalmia a senior policy analyst at Reason Foundation
• Richard Timberlake, professor of economics.
• Bruce Bartlett, former treasury official.
• Youtube video of Mike Norman, a wall street economist.[15] (probably not RS)

LK (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

References