Talk:Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

Redirect Bohm Bawerk
For simpler access, would it not make sense to redirect "Eugen von Bohm Bawerk" to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.93.238 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"opposed" in the infobox
It's not clear what "opposed" means in the infobox. As best I can tell, it embodies the Bohm-Bawerk's criticism of Marx's economics, which is a more nuanced topic than mere opposition, and covered over many paragraphs in the article body. I've removed the item as it does not properly describe the relationship between Bohm-Bawerk and Marx. aprock (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note, the opposed parameter in the infobox was deprecated. – S. Rich (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Post-Mortem Name-Change?!? and academic work?!?!
Eugen Ritter von Böhm-Bawerk died in 1914. Some inept pedants have moved this article to “Eugen Böhm von Bawerk” based on a theory that his name was changed in 1919. —172.58.17.67 (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Funny that you mention he dies in 1914 since "Between 1880 and 1947 Böhm von Bawerk worked on..." assertion after mentioning Nymeyer. Can the commies editing this page please get his name correct von Bohm-Bawerk, not von Bawerk.

terminology in the critique of Marx section
The section where B-B's critique of Marx is laid out misuses Marxian terms (e.g., the "theory of labour value", which is--from Marx's POV--redundant and nonsensical since the substance of value is abstract labor to begin with, therefore making "labour value" a nonsense term). I suspect this is the result of third- and fourth-hand renditions of Marx's work, but it should be corrected.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Austrian Banknote 100 Sch. 1984 Eugen Böhm von Bawerk.jpg

Need More About His Theory Of Capital
As I recall, central to his positive theory are four causes of interest. They could be listed. One might also want to note his ideas about the period of production, also in Jevons, and built on by Wicksell. Which Austrians though that theory was a sidetrack? Most contemporary economists also think it mistaken. But Peter Lewin and Nicholas C. insist on retaining it, with a redefinition in terms of finance.216.171.191.62 (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)