Talk:Austrian business cycle theory/Archives/2011/August

Financial crisis of 2007–2010

This revision of the "Financial crisis of 2007-2010" section was recently reverted by BigK HeX under the claim that the adjustments were "factually inaccurate OR, and youtube".

I dispute BigK's claims and would like him to demonstrate which part of the article is inaccurate and explain why speeches given by politicians on the House floor are unacceptable references. Michael.suede (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It is unsurprising to see that my revisions were reverted back and no commentary by anyone has been left in this section as an explanation for their actions. I hope you are all proud of yourselves.Michael.suede (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

On Schiff, his predictions were after the bubble peaked in March 2006, so changing the claim to "before prices began their decline" is factually incorrect.

On Ron Paul, past discussions on this talk page led to a consensus that YouTubes are not been acceptable sourcing for this article. You're welcome to use alternate sources for Ron Paul. BigK HeX (talk) 07:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the United States housing bubble article, new home prices did not peak until March of 2007. See that Census Bureau chart on the side of the page? You'll have to show me why that census data is invalid if you want to say that Schiff gave his lecture after housing prices started to fall. What economists deem to be the peak of the bubble is not the same as the point when housing prices reached their peak, so it is entirely legitimate to say Schiff gave his lecture before prices started to fall. As for not being able to use publicly available video from the House floor as a legitimate source of information, I have to laugh. That is a completely illegitimate demand and does not follow wiki policy. Michael.suede (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul definitely predicted the housing bubble back in 2002 and 2003. Here's a transcript.

His predictions have been noted several times in the media, including by MSNBC's Joe Scarborough:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLm7Sw402xE#t=30s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ilcr6akrwoE#t=1m05s

Could someone please let me know if there are any objections to restoring the mention of Paul's 2002 and 2003 predictions in the article? --Cincinatis (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have revised the article to use direct references.Michael.suede (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• This should probably go in there somewhere as well: http://mises.org/daily/3128/the-bailout-reader

http://mises.org/daily/5512/The-Austrians-Were-Right-Yet-Again

Ron Paul is not an economist so I think he doesn't deserve a mention in this article. As for Schiff, I think that we would need secondary sources that link his predictions with ABCT since investment strategists are usually influenced by variety of sources. Also, secondary sources are needed to establish his relevance to the Austrian School. I'm sure there are many investment advisers that adhere to Keynesianism but we don't mention them in the article about Keynesian economics. -- Vision Thing -- 18:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul is an economist, given his expertise is in economics. He's served on the Joint Economic Committee, the House Committee on Financial Services, and is the Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. He founded the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education. His minority report to the U.S. Gold Commission was published by the Cato Institute, the most prominent free-market think tank, in 'The Case for Gold', and is a distinguished counseler to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which is the world's most prominent Austrian-school-focused academic organization.

His 2001-2003 predictions of the mortgage bubble and crash are directly relevant to Austrian school's prediction of the 2007 financial crisis. Your insinuation that only those with degrees in economics can be considered economists is faulty. --Cincinatis (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In the context of a revival of interest in ABCT, the "Schiff was Right" video is a pretty notable contributing factor. I'm not sure commentary of Schiff can be excluded if a discussion of this "revival" is presented. BigK HeX (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that establishes his importance for revival? I haven't seen that connection made in any relevant article. -- Vision Thing -- 19:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have few doubts that some interest generated by the "Schiff was Right" can be sourced. However, I don't think there are credible independent academic accounts of an ABCT "revival". That section seems to be written entirely from a minority perspective, in violation of WP:UNDUE. BigK HeX (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This WSJ article can be used as a source for existence of revival. It mainly talks about Peter J. Boettke, professor at George Mason University, as the emerging "intellectual standard-bearer for the Austrian school of economics". This and the main article should definitely use Boettke as a reference more often.

As for positive and negative views on the Austrian explanation of the financial crisis this post by Martin Wolf can be a good starting point. -- Vision Thing -- 20:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That WSJ article can be used, but, as I said, I doubt there are any academic sources that discuss any such revival. In any case, I am certain that Schiff's role can be sourced with something equivalent to that news article. BigK HeX (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, until such source is found I will remove part about Schiff. I will also add something about Boettke. -- Vision Thing -- 19:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

LK, what is the problem with this edit? It is sourced to Wolf's claim that "some would argue that economists working in the Austrian tradition were more nearly right than anybody else." -- Vision Thing -- 16:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

1) That off-hand Wolf remark is not a reliable source for a claim about what economists do or do not believe. I read it as similar to a statement like 'There is reason to think that ...' 2) Wolf's literal claim is that 'some', not 'some economists', so even taken literally, it doesn't support the statement as written. LK (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)