Talk:Austrian school of economics

The more the Murrayer?
As the article stands, it seems no section cannot end without a sentence or paragraph of "what would Rothbard say?" This places undue weight on his views and gives them undue emphasis relative to the other Austrian views and scholars on these subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 16:18, June 6, 2013

Removed reference of Church-Turing computability as indicator of human actions
The text read "Mainstream economists have argued that Austrians are often averse to the use of mathematics and statistics in economics. However, independent scholar Martin Sibileau, in 2014, offered a formal proof that, based on the Church-Turing thesis, human action is not "decidable", "computable" and therefore cannot be mathematized. He also suggested a logics-based approach for a definitive formalization of the Austrian thought."

Whether human action is decidable or computable has nothing to do with whether statistics can be applied. As shown by the indeterminacy in quantum state measurements, whether something *can* be known or computed has nothing to do whether it can be statistically modeled.

Changed 'Prussian Historical School' to 'Historical School'
Per this old discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austrian_School/Archive_12#Prussian_Historical_School?

Austrians regard ‘neoliberal’ as a slur
Austrians do not think of themselves as being “neoliberal” and view the term as an offensive epithet. Slapping that baggage-laden tag on this article violates neutral point of view.

Criticism of Austrian School
I added this from Criticism of Austrian Economics. The source is aimed at students learning economics and the authors understand the subject. Coral matters (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Im not at all convinced this source is particularly reliable. It appears to be just a blog.  Further, i dont think the material added is particularly helpful. Im each case, it appears you are simply restating what has already been said better and with attribution.  If, for example, Jeffrey Sachs thinks "that among developed countries, those with high rates of taxation and high social welfare spending perform better on most measures of economic performance" there is no need to restate that exactly, but without attribution. Bonewah (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the material about the negative multiplir was already in the article. I restored it. Coral matters (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

usage of heterodox in 1st sentence
The usage of the word "heterodox" is the first sentence is inappropriate, it seeks to disparage the entire school based on references that attack a strawman of more extreme interpretations. The Austrian School is not without controversy, but to immediately dismiss the entire school in such a way violates the neutral point of view.

Suggest to move this perspective from the first sentence and make it a separate (qualified) sentence in the introduction. Bquast (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * "Heterodox" is not pejorative in contrasting classical economics with heterodox economics.
 * But using this broad umbrella categorization is jarring later when one reads in the second paragraph:
 * “theoretical contributions . . . [have] become an accepted part of mainstream economics.” Drodarm (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)