I think this should be called Austrian School, which it is what it is usually known as. ħuman 06:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agree.--BobSpring is sprung! 06:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
What this article needs
- Yeah, this is kind of wall-of-text-y. The Austrians manage to pack so much wrong into so little space, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Cool anti logic proaganda bro.
- It's easy to whine about how the other side is wrong. The hard part is actually proving that they're wrong. --"Shut up, Brx." 03:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Which must be why the creators of the article so completely failed to do so. This article isn't a refutation of Austrian Economics, this article is a refutation of a strawman of the misconception one gets from listening to people who read mises.org articles without much actual education in economics. You would think something called 'Rationalwiki' would have more people capable of, you know, using reason.
- An actual engagement with Austrian economics could find some definite points to quibble with, and even some serious issues, but a proper engagement would require, you know, actually understanding the topic. Or even just having a background in economics wider than reading Paul Krugman. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you think this article is inadequate, how about making an account and giving us something to work with for improving it? There are those of us who do not exactly have the rosiest view of Prof. Krugman; but the one time this article mentions a view of his, Milton Friedman (not exactly one of those bullet-spitting pinkos) is in agreement with him. ListenerXTalkerX 07:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, there are tons of mistakes in this article. It's really biased. I'm not going to help anyone fix it, because I don't feel like it. But it's terrible.
Thsi article has a Keynesian bias.
- If you didn't read... Stop adhering to a theory that has never been used successfully in any modern economy. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Our physics articles also have a relativity bias, while your at it. Radioactive Misanthrope 01:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that the Mises Institute has digitized books by Mises and other Austrian economists, and it gives them away as free ebooks over the Internet, like Jehovah's witnesses' literature or something, apparently because not enough people want to buy them.
If the Mises Institute doesn't have price signals to tell it how many of these ebooks to produce, how can it do this without running into Mises's socialist calculation problem and causing economic chaos? Advancedatheist (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Most austrians are against IP. A digital book is a public non scarce resource. Its supply is infinte so the price is 0. If you download an ebook it doesn't mean there is one less ebook around to be sold to another person.
- I think most economists would agree that once a piece of intelectual property is produced it will generate the most social good if it is allowed to be used for free. The rationale for IP is to artificially make a public good scarce for the sake of economically incentivicing creators to generate new material in the future. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- This post is particularly dumb in multiple ways. Longnameislonger (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Which post are you referring to? If it's mine, could you explain why it's dumb in a bit more detail? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Are they trying to distance themselves from the fact that Austrianism ignores empirical testing? They can say whatever they want about Keynesianism and 70s stagnation (and vice-versa with Monetarism and the Great Recession), but the comments are setting up an unusual precedent. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting stuff... this is a difficult article to assess, inasmuch as we have a serious dearth of talent in economics here among our trusted users. It's a complicated and difficult field, and can often be counter-intuitive - the perfect breeding ground for pseudoscience!--talk 07:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect representation of ABCT
The writer of the ABCT section is misinformed about ABCT. ABCT states that the business cycle begins with an expansion of bank credit, not by an action of the central bank. It does not state that central banking causes the business cycle, but that it exacerbates it. Obviously, since the expansion of bank credit existed before the central banks, ABCT is consistent with the existence of the business cycle before the existence of central banks. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory
I recommend that if you criticise something, make sure you understand it first.
- From the article you reference - central bank policies, including unsustainable expansion of bank credit through fractional reserve banking, are the predominant cause of most business cycles, (emphasis mine). That seems to this ignoramus to back up the assertion that the actions of the central bank (their policies) being the cause of business cycles. Bad Faith (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- The part you quote is under the section labeled "The role of central banks", so obviously it refers to the actions of central banks and their effect on the business cycle. Nowhere does the quote state, as is erroneously portrayed on this rational wiki page, that the central bank is a necessary component of the credit cycle. On the contrary, other parts of the wiki page on ABCT directly explain that the Austrians attribute the cause of the cycle to credit expansion as such:
- The theory views business cycles as the inevitable consequence of excessive growth in bank credit, exacerbated by inherently damaging and ineffective central bank policies, which cause interest rates to remain too low for too long, resulting in excessive credit creation, speculative economic bubbles and lowered savings.
- In contrast to most mainstream theories on business cycles, Austrians focus on the credit cycle as the primary cause of most business cycles.
- According to the theory, the boom-bust cycle of malinvestment is generated by excessive and unsustainable credit expansion to businesses and individual borrowers by the banks.
- In Rothbard's view, the cycle of generalized malinvestment is greatly exacerbated by centralized monetary intervention in the money markets by the central bank.
- [emphasis added]
- You can also look at the original article published by Polleit which the quote from the wiki page on ABCT you provided references. It never says that central banks are necessary to create the credit cycle, nor implies that this description represents "most business cycles". Rather, it refers to the current crisis and current fiat currencies (the article was written in 2007). Even someone who has no idea about economics should notice that the portrayal on this rational wiki page is inaccurate. There is a sharp distinction between a necessary condition of the business cycle (which central banks, according to the Austrians, are not), and a catalyst that exacerbates the cycle (which central banks, according to the Austrians, are). According to the Austrians, the necessary condition for the business cycle is credit expansion, not the existence of central banks. Credit expansion does not need central banks. Without credit expansion, according to the Austrians, there would be no business cycle, even if there were central banks. In such a case, even though there was a misallocation of resources, there would be no systematic cycles (I believe this is argued by De Soto in Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles, but I would need to check to make sure where exactly).