Talk:Ludwig von Mises/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Standards

Once again we see a Wiki biography with no mention of ethnicity or religion. The reader might be allowed the inference that since Hayek was related on his mother's side to Wittgenstein, he was partly Jewish. Is this the best we are to expect from Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.16.200 (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Having a tendency to write over-lengthy sentences myself, I have an eye for it in others. Content notwithstanding, some editing in that regard is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.4.187 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Minor simplifications done

I made some edits that I hope fixed the major objections to overlong sentences above. Markelwinsmith (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Karl died as an infant?

I noticed this in the Richard von Mises article, as well. My question is, how did he die as an infant if there are apparently pictures of him much older?

http://mises.org/Community/media/p/231665.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/media/p/231677.aspx

http://mises.org/Community/media/p/231722.aspx —24.94.131.49 (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Atrociously written

Here we have a sentence that is 121 words long, and has no internal punctuation such as semicolons or commas:

If capital goods were the subject of neither rent nor exchange as per private ownership of those means of production then no barter terms or money prices could arise for them and without the common nominal index of money pricing that allows comparison of costs of production to likely revenues there could be no rational allocation of diverse capital goods in the production of diverse consumer goods whose production requires some use of scarce capital which in a Socialist society would not be distributed according to the more efficient thus profitable capital structures but to any use a theoretical Socialist planner would see fit without the aid of monetary price signals to compare the profitability in a given use of capital.

It's followed by a sentence 124 words long:

Socialism would fail as demand cannot be known without prices, according to Mises, therefore Socialist waste of capital goods would be as chronic as the incentives for production and retention of capital would be low while they were coercively monopolised by a dysfunctional State operating with only the data pertaining to interpersonal comparisons of utility as per democratic production, which is not sufficient for economic calculation and therefore neither for efficient use and allocation of capital whose place in a free market is ordained by the prices set by private owners of the means of production who keep capital where its production is remunerated best by consumers and who liquidate it and pass it to other uses if production is bankrupt.

One wonders if the writer was simply engaging in an excercise to come up with the longest possible sentences. Please, someone come to the aid of Herr von Mises by rewriting this section! 199.46.199.230 (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

How about you? Anyone can edit Wikipedia, just as you've edited this talk page. Welcome aboard! Zachlipton (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I totally subscribe to the above comment. This ranks in the top 2% of the most horribly written Wikipedia articles, and it deals with a subject of wide interest. Mises' views on some subjects (e.g. fiat money) were simply prophetic, whether or not you agree with his philosophy at large. I am a biologist, not an economist, thus cannot take the responsibility to edit this. Please have an economist rewrite the "contributions to the field of economics" section. It is really, really irritating. Giacomo Consalez, Milan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giacomo Consalez (talk • contribs) 11:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Mention of his wife?

Several years ago I am certain I listened to an audio book written by his wife. There is no mention whatsoever of her despite how much she helped him function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.21.88 (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Omnipotent Government and Bureaucracy pub dates and order

I see that Omnipotent Government and Bureaucracy were both published in 1944.

Does anyone know the exact months or dates?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Several passages in this section could be categorized as personal attacks and were thus deleted. The passges did nothing to provide useful background on Von Mises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttocs4591 (talk • contribs)

I motion that the entire criticism section either be re-written, or deleted. People's personal opinions about von Mises do not meet the criteria for relevance. This section reads more like childish name calling than an actual scholarly critique of Mises's work. It falls well below Wikipedia standards to be included here.173.33.238.109 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That would go in a page about his scholarly work. And please, people upset about this criticism page have to be joking. It's one of the softest criticism sections I've ever seen. Every criticism boils down to "I ultimately agree with him but sometimes he lacks tact" and the last "criticism" is just praise with "He doesn't compromise" at the end...which to Austrian schoolers is a compliment. It seems. 128.2.51.15 (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Mises' praise of fascism

I wish whoever keeps deleting my addition about Mises' critical praise of fascism would stop. It is extremely important that it be known to the world that a thinker so revered by libertarians had positive things to say about fascism. Who is it that keeps deleting it? This is indicative of Mises' political sympathies, and thus significant in judging him as an economist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GlennBecksiPod (talk • contribs) 04:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

According to whom?
a) A credentialed expert on the history of thought or another relevant field.
b) Some yahoo with internet access.
If you answered b), I have bad news... Skomorokh 01:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Please check talk page archives, specifically here. LK (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion of whether to include this or not, but it's easy to see that authors have found it worth mentioning.[1][2]   Will Beback  talk  09:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you cherry picking a quote, completely out of its context, from a book in which Mises is attacking Fascism (in a chapter where he's deliberately considering the argument for Fascism). Maybe it would be better if you actually read some of his work, so you could follow the argument (his point about the "best intentions" of Italian fascism, insofar as it is reaction to Bolshevism,is rhetorical because ultimately, he claims, both are two sides of the same coin). POV editing, such as yours, is why we have policies on wikipedia about WP:PRIMARY Avaya1 (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, it does seem to me rather a waste of time to bring up the fact that Mises in 1927 thought fascism a valuable temporary bulwark against the spread of communism. Many otherwise respectable people thought so at the time (e.g., Winston Churchill went much further than Mises in praising Mussolini, at around the same time, see [3]). But Will Beback and others have documented the fact that Mises's quote has been repeatedly used against him in print by important commentators, and that might well be enough reason to include it in the article. In any case, the full quote should be given, ending in "fatal error," not in "will live eternally in history." Also, the context of fighting violent communist insurgency should be provided. At any rate, whether to leave the quote in or not should be decided by consensus. - Eb.hoop (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. However, we should document the use of that quote against him, rather than quoting Mises himself, as that would give the appearence of cherry picking. I suggest something along the lines of "Critics of Mises, such as economic historian Brad Delong, have noted that ...". LK (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Of the two published sources Will Beback  talk found: (1) is a footnote in Hülsmann, telling us: 'This sentence is preceded by the following statement that is often quoted out of context to "demonstrate" the absurd contention that Mises endorsed Fascism' (2) the other one is a politics screed by a socialist-activist (called Richard Seymour), who is writing about David Cameron (Cameron has probably never heard the name of Mises): Seymour just quotes the statement out of context to 'demonstrate the absurd contention that Mises endorsed Fascism'.

The only respectable one of those sources therefore tells us not to quote the statement out of context. As for Brad Delong - it's presumably from his blog? if it's from his blog then it's not really a notable source. We shouldn't quote from blogs unless the blog/blogger is itself/himself the subject of the article. Avaya1 (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the update I made regarding Mises' praise of what he saw as positive aspects of fascism was explicit in locating his championing of these positive aspects in his own critique of fascism. This can be checked in Mises' actual writings for anyone that cares to follow the thread to the source. Those here who would not have the truth about their beloved Von Mises made known-- so that "yahoos with internet access" (completely unsophisticated idiots, of course) might read into it and discover the "merit of fascism"-- must refine the addition around the quote or stop deleting it. What are they trying to hide? The quote stays. If you want to sugar-coat it by rewriting the parts leading up to the sentences where Mises praises fascism, be my guess. But I'll keep adding it because it should be known. What's wrong with revealing the truth? It is not stated that he endorsed fascism, but that he simply admired what he considered some of its positive aspects. These are important in understanding the man. All thinkers must be questioned, after all, even the darlings of right wing libertarian thought. GlennBecksiPod (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear GlennBecksiPod: Please keep two things in mind. First, that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "reveal the truth." It's simply a collaborative encyclopedia, with certain editorial policies. In particular, it cannot be a forum for anyone's original research and can only reproduce and summarize material from mainstream, respected secondary sources. Also, you cannot act unilaterally in controversial matters. If you keep adding the quote without first arriving at some consensus here in the talk page, then you will be blocked by the administrators. - Eb.hoop (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear Eb.hoop: Please re-read what I wrote above, keeping in mind that there is no argument being made that Mises endorsed fascism. However, the "merit of fascism" is from Mises' own pen. Now, as I have already brought up, the primary source text in which Mises praises what he likes about fascism can certainly be fluffed up/dissected by other parties. This is what I advocate; leaving the quote as it appears in the text, and drawing critical attention to the argument. If you do not like how I have done it, perhaps you can find a way to present his praise of fascism in a way that appears less caustic. On the other hand, that parties here do not think such praise of fascism constitutes a criticism is understandable to me. I, for one, do. You are quite correct that I cannot act unilaterally. But understand that when I had first made this addition it was being deleted repeatedly without any constructive discussion. Now, if there is no consensus on keeping this sourced statement by Mises on the merit of fascism in the criticism section (however we might decide to edit it), then perhaps we can find a more constructive way to wrap Mises' praise of fascism into the article as a whole, without referring to it as a negative criticism. What do others think? GlennBecksiPod (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I've restored the complete quote, with a bit more background and references to it being used by DeLong and Seymour. Let's see what people here think. - Eb.hoop (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Delong is a world-renowned economic historian, as such his opinion on this matter is pertinent, and his blog is a reliable source for his views. Wording could use some tweaking, but the issue is notable enough to appear on the page. LK (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
DeLong is not an economic historian. At least that's not what's he's known for, academically. All of his most cited papers are in macroeconomics. - Eb.hoop (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been mostly trying to stay out of this, so I won't be arguing the point much. I lean against inclusion based on DeLong (don't know about the other source), just because DeLong is so prolific on his blog, that for him to mention something in a blog post still seems like a passing comment, and so doesn't add a lot of weight. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't disagree that Delong is prolific. However, one has to weigh the fact that not much has been written about Mises by mainstream economists. And as such, Delong's opinion is likely notable as one of the relatively few opinions expressed by a mainstream economist about Mises. BTW, in reply to Eb.hoop, Delong describes himself as an economic historian, and his academic papers are mainly in that field. LK (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the quote-mine of Mises where the author is attempting to create a hoax that Mises admired fascism. Mises fled to America to escape the fascists and wrote scathingly of their politics and economics for the rest of his natural life. To try and twist his writings this way is a deliberate and malicious attempt at deceiving readers. This is a clear violation of Wiki's policies on creating hoaxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.238.109 (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This indeed seems like a strange criticism to include. -- Vision Thing -- 18:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Strange" is a perspectival adjective. It conveys no objective information. What is strange to one person can be commonplace to another person.Lestrade (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Lestrade

The criticism section currently does not pass standards

Zachlipton has retrieved the predeletion version of the article stating that the "opinions are well referenced". While I do not contardict your point as such (Milton Friedman did such comment and Mises did leave the room), please reconsider if "Criticism" section really shall consist of ad personam comments directed at diminishing respect for the person, even when the comments are given by such figure as M. Friedman.

To compare the quality level of criticism look at the following excerpt from bio article about M. Friedman:

"Austrian school criticism

During 1971, libertarian economist Murray Rothbard wrote a lengthy article for The Individualist which criticized several of Friedman's viewpoints as totalitarian and statist. In particular, Rothbard criticized these views of Friedman:

  • That the micro- and macro-spheres are entirely separate, with the government needing to take an active role in the macro-sphere (Rothbard saw this as false and dangerous);
  • That it is beneficial for the government to control currency to maintain constant price levels as bogus and harmful, and;
  • That nonpaying beneficiaries of positive externalities created by various services should be taxed to pay producers of that service (Rothbard saw this as an absurd position that opens the door for the most ridiculous forms of totalitarianism).

More generally, Rothbard criticized Friedman's efforts to make the government more efficient as detrimental to individual liberty. He concluded that "And so, as we examine Milton Friedman’s credentials to be the leader of free-market economics, we arrive at the chilling conclusion that it is difficult to consider him a free-market economist at all."[54] Friedman's position on governmental control of money changed since 1971 when this criticism was made.[55] In a 1995 interview in Reason magazine he said the "difference between me and people like Murray Rothbard is that, though I want to know what my ideal is, I think I also have to be willing to discuss changes that are less than ideal so long as they point me in that direction". He said he actually would "like to abolish the Fed", and points out that when he has written about the Fed it is simply his recommendations of how it should be run given that it exists.[5]"

So my point rests: "The section shall be all deleted as it contains no intellectual counter points but only disinformative ad personam smears and poorly fragmented gossip)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.90.178.104 (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a biography, so significant views about the person are relevant.   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is the "Criticism" section still here? 66.108.243.166 (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Moi

The quote from Bruce Caldwell is really taken out of context. Caldwell doesn't critize Mises in his book as much as he reports how modern positivist economists viewed his rather heterodox and classical approach. A few lines below he offers a quote from Samuelson as a proof. The Samuelson quote would be much more relevant to the criticism section. --Melt core (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"If capital goods are the subject of neither rent nor exchange, as per private ownership of those means of production, then no barter terms or money prices can arise for them. Without the common nominal index of money pricing that allows comparison of costs of production to likely revenues, there can be no rational allocation of diverse capital goods in the production of diverse consumer goods whose production requires some use of scarce capital. In a socialist society, capital is not distributed according to the more efficient—thus profitable—capital structures, but rather to any use a theoretical socialist planner sees fit without the aid of monetary price signals to compare the profitability in a given use of capital."

This is very difficult to understand, and could stand rewriting. What is a "barter term", a "money price"? What is meant by "the common nominal index of money pricing"? The sentence, "There can be no rational allocation of diverse capital goods in the production of diverse consumer goods whose production requires some use of scarce capital" is a mess. What, further, is a "capital structure"? Are these economic terms of art, or are they Mises' own invention? If the former, then there should be links to other Wikipedia articles; if the latter, than they require a more thorough explanation.

It can hardly be a service to the reader of encyclopedia, if he has to read the work of the author being summarized, in order to understand the summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.56.106.66 (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Further reading item – Mariotti (BRD)

It seems (IMO) that a Huffington Post item was removed because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Here is the Diff: [4]. Actually, none of the edit summary reasons given ("Undid revision 574360062 by Srich32977 (talk) Remove Huffington Post blog post full of non-expert opinion, off-topic rumination, and unchecked "fact" and evaluation of Mises.") have any basis in policy because this is simply a further reading item. The material is not used to support any of the article text. The proposed WP:Further reading and existing WP:FURTHER MOS guideline certainly allow for such material. Somewhere I read that all content on WP, from whatever source, is selected according to the good faith judgment of editors as to relevance, significance, and neutrality. It is baseless to suggest that this material is unacceptable merely because an editor made the good-faith judgment that these statements of Mariotti's are significant and representative of Mariotti's work and beliefs. Such judgment is a common, widespread, and valuable part of the editing process. That rationale applies here. – S. Rich (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)01:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, strike through your misrepresentation of the reason I gave in my edit summary. Your misrepresentation violates core WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 01:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I left out the first phrase where you said you were undoing my revision. I did not feel that "who" had posted the material was at all pertinent. But maybe it is. That first phrase is now in the quote. – S. Rich (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Strike through your misrepresentation of my view, or would you like me to do it for you? SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I quoted your edit summary, word for word. A strikeout will be considered a reversion of my comments. A reply to my rationale would be more helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
If you do not strike your statement, I will be pursue this in the appropriate venue. If you don't understand what text I am telling you to strike, you may ask me to do it for you. SPECIFICO talk 01:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Your edit summary for the diff is what it is. And I quoted it correctly. Report away in the appropriate venue if you like. Responding to my rationale for inclusion, like in accordance with Further reading and FURTHER, would be much more productive. – S. Rich (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Rich, it would be polite to do what he says, no? MilesMoney (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing to do. He says I misrepresented his edit summary. But I quoted it exactly. (Compare for yourself!) This is some sort of bizarre off-topic side-dispute that diverts attention from the real issue -- whether including the Mariotti/Huntington Post link is proper. Specifico is not addressing that issue. – S. Rich (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Quoting out of context is a form of misrepresentation. The polite thing to do here is to focus on the issues, not on this sort of nonsense. Start by doing what he asks. MilesMoney (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Nothing is quoted out of context. Specifico provided an edit summary to justify removal of the Mariotti piece. I quoted it back in full, word for word, completely accurately and in the context of his justification for removing the further reading item. And I responded with WP guidance and proposed guidance. I wish Specifico (or you) would give an answer to my guideline-based response instead of complaining about this totally make believe malarky about misrepresentation. – S. Rich (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

No consensus has been reached here, yet user Srich has edit-warred the 'further reading' link back. The link presents a POV which is not balanced, the link is a blog piece, non-RS, by a non-expert author. The link violates the draft guideline for "further reading" User Srich has been warned several times about his recent edit-warring. Per BRD, the link should not have been re-inserted and if Srich wishes to act in good faith, he should remove the link pending consensus here or through DR. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

At four different points in the "Discussion" above, I asked for a response to the issues I raised. Nothing was said. Now I am accused of EW and bad faith. Warnings about EW? Completely unfounded. Astounding. – S. Rich (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
You have been asked to remove your EW. Two editors have rebuked you here. You would do well to undo your re-insertion and pursue consensus through whatever means. Choose wisely. SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Who has "rebuked" me? And on what basis? More importantly, WTF do such "rebukes" have to do with including the Huffington Post piece? I opened this BRD – and I saw nothing but bullshit from you and MilesMoney. Consensus is not needed at this point. Why? Because you failed to discuss the issue. So the WP:BURDEN is on you to persuade other editors to join you in your effort to keep out an editor recommended further reading item. And don't tell me that MilesMoney supports you as to keeping the Huffington Post item in as a further reading item. Miles had nothing to say about the issues. – S. Rich (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Read WP:BURDEN -- it's on you. You've been told repeatedly not to misrepresent policy. SPECIFICO talk 04:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I will be uncivil impolite [term modified] at this point. This is bullshit! You are saying I misrepresented your quoted "edit summary" and now you say I misrepresent policy. (Not a new feckless and unfounded tactic for you.) Each accusation totally lacks foundation or basis in fact. You have yet to address any issue related to Further reading guidance. – S. Rich (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC) 20:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm one of the editors who rebuked you, and now I'm rebuking you some more for imagining that someone gave you a license to be uncivil. I suggest you edit your comments back to civility. MilesMoney (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you need go back and respond to my request you strike your Personal Attack in the form of mis-characterizing my view. You have re-inserted the link, against BRD and you should undo that action. Removing what you fear is an incriminating self-characterization after an ANI has been opened is unlikely to change observers' evaluation of your tendentious and disruptive behavior here. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I went back and struck the term "uncivil" with hopes that administrators reading the ANI would be spared from having to look at another pile of crap. Alas, the pile – both piles – grow higher because you continue to complain that I misrepresented your edit summary in some fashion at the beginning of this "discussion". – S. Rich (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
You misrepresented my view -- that's a violation of core WP policy. A third editor confirmed that you had misrepresented my view. I asked you to strike that. You rather angrily decline to acknowledge the misrepresntation, let alone correct it, despite the good will others have shown in asking you to correct yourself. Instead, you respond with anger and denial. I clearly explained to you that the proposed link violates the draft guidance on 'further reading', yet you repeatedly state that you don't know why your edit is disputed. You refuse to undo your edit-warring re-insertion of the disputed link. If I conclude that you're not going to address this, I will reluctantly join user Miles in detailing your uncivil and tendentious behavior. I really do hope you'll take a step back and do the right thing so that it's not necessary to continue with Miles' ANI. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I have just now gone back to my original post (above) and used bold font to highlight the edit summary which Specifico posted when reverting my edit. The remainder of my comment was in response to his edit summary. There was no misrepresentation, and repeating the allegation of misrepresentation does not make it true. – S. Rich (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Please clarify/correct your statement just above. "A third editor confirmed that you had misrepresented my view." The only editors in this discussion (and the ANI) are you, MilesMoney, and myself. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Post-ANI discussion

Where we stand: I stated several concerns about the "further reading" blog link in my edit summary, which should have set the stage for a discussion and resolution of the content disagreement here on talk. Instead, user Srich starts off here: by accusing me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and then summarily rejects the reasons I stated in my edit summary. He then goes on to his misrepresentation of my view. Srich writes: "It is baseless [for me, SPECIFICO] to suggest that this material is unacceptable merely because an editor made the good-faith judgment that these statements of Mariotti's are significant and representative of Mariotti's work and beliefs." Srich's words, within quotes is a misrepresentation of the view which I stated in my edit summary and listed my concerns as to the Mariotti link. Srich, you should strike through your misrepresentation of my view. You should not have re-inserted the "further reading" link while discussion was underway.
I have reset the article text to the point of my reversion so that we can resume discussion of Srich's proposed "further reading" link to the Huffington Post blog. Srich, you should strike through your misrepresentation and denigration of my view. SPECIFICO talk 03:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I'll try this, restating what I said above: "Somewhere I read that 'all content on WP, from whatever source, is selected according to the good faith judgment of editors as to relevance, significance, and neutrality. It is baseless to suggest that this material is unacceptable merely because an editor made the good-faith judgment that these statements of [the cited material] are significant and representative of [the cited person's] work and beliefs. Such judgment is a common, widespread, and valuable part of the editing process.' That rationale applies here."
Putting this into my own words, Mariotti's Huffington Post blog post might be "full of non-expert opinion, off-topic rumination, and unchecked 'fact' and evaluation of Mises", but the Huffington Post qualifies as RS (for fact) and this particular newsblog is not presented for its factual material or expert opinion. But it does have value as an editorial opinion, and therefore can be included as an editor-recommended further reading item. The only Manual of Style parameter for further reading items is "a reasonable number of editor-recommended" items. (And our list further reading items was recently pared down by removing items which duplicated references used in the text.) So, in good faith I have exercised my judgement and selected it for inclusion as relevant, significant, and "neutral" in the sense that it presents one of the perspectives about Mises and his influence. – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
So your best argument for mentioning this low-quality source is that it's not strictly forbidden? Really, that's all you've got? MilesMoney (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:FURTHER does not address high or low quality and WP:Further reading says "Editors most frequently choose high-quality reliable sources. However, other sources may be appropriate." – S. Rich (talk)
So your best argument for mentioning this low-quality source is that it's not strictly forbidden? Really, that's all you've got? MilesMoney (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
So repeating the exact same statement is your best argument? Come on, please address the issue of quality IAW the MOS & proposed guideline. – S. Rich (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
You've yet to make an affirmative argument for inclusion. MilesMoney (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The Manual of Style parameter does not require an "affirmative argument for inclusion". Reasonable number & editor-recommended is enough. The piece is not a personal blog. The Huffington Post has enough ummmppfff to make it worthwhile. Anyways, what's wrong with the "relevance, significance, and neutrality" of the piece? Please provide an affirmative argument for keeping it out. – S. Rich (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Burden is on you for inclusion, Srich. If the test for inclusion were solely "reasonable number and editor-recommended" then you could just as well add Winnie the Pooh. I urge you to take some time off from these articles if you are not able to engage in collegial resolution of this matter here. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The Winnie the Pooh example is absurd. No one is going to say such a link is relevant, significant, or neutral. And no responsible editor would make such a recommendation. – S. Rich (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the point: no responsible editor would recommend including your link on the basis of being relevant, significant or neutral. I'd much rather have Winnie the Pooh. MilesMoney (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ron Paul as a further reading item

Noting here [5] that it was of sufficient encyclopedic value and interest to mention Ron Paul as having received a prize from the Ludwig von Mises Institute, it is certainly of sufficient encyclopedic value and interest to include a link where Ron Paul, a notable figure in American politics, has talked about the influence that Mises had upon him and his thinking. Furthermore, the item is not used as a reference, and rationale or analysis of the piece as RS is not required. – S. Rich (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, these are all great reasons to omit it. MilesMoney (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Who attended NYU seminars vs. home visits

Obviously, it's a big deal to User:SPECIFICO who attended only NYU seminars and who only attended home get togethers, and maybe who attended both. However, without better verification in quotes or links to the books content, it's difficult to figure out who did what. I don't think it's that important who went to what myself and just adding "also" to he saw students at home would solve the problem. But if SPECIFICO wants to parse out so carefully who learned from him where, he really will have to provide more evidence. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 04:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Extraordinarius

I believe "extraordinarius" was equivalent to an adjunct or instructor -- one who was outside the full-time staff of the university. Unless we have RS which describes the role and more importantly the significance of mentioning it, I believe that it should not be included in the article. I do not believe that the current text which states, without citation, that it is like "associate professor" is correct. An Associate Professor is a paid, full-time role within the hierarchy of the institution. This was not the case with Mises. We need sourcing and the significance of the statement to the description of Mises life and work. For some further information, see [6] -- not that we use that as a source, but it plainly contradicts the current text. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The usual situation is described in A History of the University in Europe by Walter Rüegg (2011) p 185: before WWI: "the average salary of the full professor was twice that of an associate professor(Extraordinarius)." Rjensen (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
We already have information in the article text that Mises was not paid for this role. And we have no source which describes it as equivalent to a current "Associate Professor" role. If you have RS that Mises role was such, please share it. Otherwise it is an arcane undefined term that almost comes off like something from Harry Potter, Narnia or the Wiz. WP articles should convey well-defined and referenced information and so far we don't have the detail about his role. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
In the German academic world the title was associated with a routine status universally understood, one very similar to "associate professor" in American academe. Whether he was paid or not, and why he accepted an unpaid title, is another matter entirely. In 1919 The state and the university was virtually bankrupt and there was no money to hire anyone for actual pay, so perhaps he took it solely for the prestige. Rjensen (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Rjensen. I think this discussion is veering away from the immediate matter at hand. The "professor extraordinarius" bit doesn't add information to the article. It adds an undefined term and we need RS description of Mises' actual role as well as an inline citation for any comment the article might make about the definition of the term. We have your personal statement as to the meaning of professor extraordinarius, and we also have a conflicting statement as to its meaning in the WP article I cited above. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the German term doesn't make much sense in English and really does sound like something its not. Given how misleading it is, if we can't find good sourcing, we should just drop it. MilesMoney (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
One problem is that everyone is relying on a poor bio written by people who did not understand German/Austrian academic life. I think it's quite possible the university offered von Mises the title without a salary (probably because it had no money and he needed a title). Rjensen (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I surmise that this may be a subject in which you have some knowledge or even expertise, but nonetheless as WP editors we need to put on our soldiers' caps and find RS to paraphrase. We have none. Moreover, does this really add any information relevant to this great man's life? He was a senior government policy figure in Austria at the time. Does a low-level academic appointment for a single year tell us anything significant? If so there should be RS to which we can refer for the facts. We have none at this time. The content should be removed until it can be verified. SPECIFICO talk 14:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
According to the recent and full-length (but highly hagiographic) biography by Jörg Hülsmann, Mises became "professor extraordinarius" in 1918, but was never granted a salary. See [7], p. 287-88. This sounds strange to me, since I had otherwise understood that a "professor extraodinarius" was akin to a US assistant professor, which would certainly entail a salary. In German-speaking universities, the ultimate rank still is "professor ordinarius", equivalent to a US tenured professor (the word ordinarius, or "ordinary", here meaning "exercising authority by virtue of office and not by delegation", a term still sometimes used in English for bishops). Someone with better knowledge of the academic practices of the day would have to weigh in to sort this out. - Eb.hoop (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I see what might be the problem. Hülsmann ASSUMES that all extraodinarius professors were unpaid. That is not true-- it was a standard rank in the system (below the full-professor or ordinarius rank). [see A History of the University in Europe by Walter Rüegg (2011) p 185] Given the bankruptcy in Austria at the time--upper class families were letting maids go because they could not feed them--he may well have been unpaid but that would have been unusual in normal times. On the other hand having the title of "professor" was (and is) very prestigous and something von Mises would really appreciate. (He had just been promoted to a captain in the military.) Rjensen (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems clear that the Hulsmann hagiography, with its error(s) is not RS for this statement, so I am going to remove it from the article. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
A 30 second search found the information here in Footnote 19, p 132 of F.A. Hayek's The Fortunes of Liberalism, editor Peter G. Klein, University of Chicago Press, 2012. The phrase Klein uses is Privatdozent. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
It's not that simple. A Privatdozent certainly is an unsalaried lecturer. Mises started out as one, which was perfectly normal in the German-speaking universities of the period. The older sources I've seen (by people like Hayek and Rothbard) claim that Mises remained a Privatdozent for the rest of his career in Vienna. Yet Hülsmann claims that Mises was promoted to "professor extraordinarius" (ausserordentlicher Professor) in 1918. He even gives the date of the corresponding imperial decree. It seems unlikely that Hülsmann would've just made that up. Everybody agrees that Mises never received a salary from the University of Vienna. So the question is whether this was normal or unusual for a "professor extraodinarius". Did it have something to do with the economic straits of Austria at the end of WWI?
You can see a discussion of this and related questions about Mises's academic career in Bruce Caldwell's biography of Hayek ([8]). It should be said that it's very strange, and perhaps a reflection on the peculiar group of people who've set themselves up as keepers of Mises's legacy, that so many basic aspects of his biography should remain mysterious. For example, we know that he had a bad relationship with his younger brother, the eminent applied mathematician Richard von Mises, and that they had divergent philosophical views. But Hülsmann says essentially nothing about the relation between Ludwig and Richard in his 1,000+ page biography. An even more substantive issue concerns Mises's best known piece of work: his argument on the impossibility of socialism. This first appeared in a paper published in 1920 in a journal co-edited by Max Weber. Weber had been a visiting professor in Vienna in 1918. After Weber died, his executors published his Economy and Society with an argument similar to Mises's and a note that said that while the work was being prepared for the press Mises's article had appeared. Yet no one seems to have anything substantive to say about the personal interaction between Mises and Weber! - Eb.hoop (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The point is we now have two sources saying he was an unpaid professer at Univ. of Vienna. That at least can be put in there. Also I think U of Chicago source mentioned the war's effect on salaries. Let's not just remove material when it takes a few minutes to do the research. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to be a pedant or a nitpicker, but technically a Privatdozent is not a professor. And, in the German-speaking world, whether a person has the title of "professor" or not can make a significant difference in terms of prestige. (Which makes it all to stranger that this point of Mises's résumé should still be unclear.) - Eb.hoop (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
You are not nitpicking at all, Eb.Hoop. We can't just cobble together our best guess from conflicting and unreliable sources. I read in another source that this was a purely honorary title for Mises -- a sign of respect for his scholarship and his public service. I read in yet another source that it was like an Assistant Professorship, lowest rank on the pole (which would seem odd). Until we have an authoritative RS about the matter, we'll just have to keep it on our to-do list for further research. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Disappointing article

There's no mention of the economic calculation problem or Austrian Business Cycle Theory or links to those articles. This article leaves out so much material that it leaves the reader befuddled why anyone would care about Mises.

Are Mises's own books not reliable sources on what he contributed? Doubledork (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP policy on editing, article content and reference sources and feel free to add valid content to any WP articles you choose. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Books by writers are not good sources for what they contributed, partly because we do not know what parts of their writings will become influential until after they are published. There is also a problem of interpretation. Informed sources who are familiar with Mises' influences and competing thinkers are in a better position to interpret what he meant than someone unaware of them. TFD (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Influences and influenced

There's general agreement that infoboxes should serve as navigation guides and should not introduce new material into an article that is not already there. Therefore, the section on influences should only include people already mentioned in the article. As for those 'influenced', they should be mentioned in the article, or alternatively, the 'influencer' should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the 'influenced'. I'm taking a first pass at removing those people from the infobox who shouldn't be there. LK (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Menger and Böhm von Bawerk should stay, but the rest (Kant and Hume, etc.) should go. TFD (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Moreover, such info needs RS. For example, Hayek was a student of Mises. – S. Rich (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ludwig von Mises. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for relocation to USA

"Fearing a Nazi takeover of Switzerland, where he was living at the time, Mises emigrated to the United States in 1940." What would be the evidence for that reasoning? --41.151.30.75 (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Years ago I read Jörg Guido Hülsmann's biography of Mises, which is largely hagiographical but contains useful factual information. Hülsmann is clear that Mises left Switzerland because his teaching position at the Graduate Institute of International Studies, in Geneva, was not renewed. Actually, according to Hülsmann the years in Geneva were the happiest of Mises's life. - Eb.hoop (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
While the Nazis never did bother Switzerland (other than a few fly overs which elicited an aggressive response from Switzerland), the Nazis where invading all over the place, particularly where German speaking populations existed. One of the biggest German speaking populations outside of Germany and Austria is Switzerland. Its not hard to see why many Swiss where nervous. Hitler either figured invading Switzerland was a provocation too far against a land famed for its non interference, or he looked at Switzerlands terrain (Its ringed by mountains) and formidable defences, and figured maybe it just wasnt a good idea to pick a fight that the whole world would be appaled by against a foe actually capable of putting up a serious fight. And anyway, having an external banker immune to the tarrifs and sanctions of the world was probably too handy not to keep around. But most people in switzerland aren't necesssarily thinking about "Could we survive this" and instead thinking "Can we avoid this". And for many people, that might well mean beating a hasty retreat out of there. 2001:44B8:6117:B100:654C:A799:7107:28AF (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

His wife explains the reasons for their departure here:

https://mises.org/library/our-escape-europe

She attributes it entirely to fear of Nazis and says that Mises was reluctant to leave, strongly suggesting that the choice was his and had nothing to do with any actions of the Institute.

The letter at the URL below is from the archives of the Graduate Institute of International Studies, where Mises was teaching. It begins, "Au moment ou les évènements m'obligent à abandonner mes fonctions à l'Institut ..." (At this moment when events force me to leave my position at the Institute ...) This strongly suggests that it was his decision, based on events external to the Institute.

http://leonidhurwicz.org/von-mises-resigation/

The fear of a Nazi invasion was of course reasonable, and especially fraught given Mises' Jewish heritage. At the mises.org URL above, it also mentions that he had been blacklisted by the Nazis.

"Germany started planning the invasion of Switzerland on 25 June 1940, the day France surrendered. At this point the German Army in France consisted of three army groups with two million soldiers in 102 divisions. Switzerland and Liechtenstein were surrounded by Occupied France and the Axis Powers, ..." See Operation Tannenbaum

Michaelhurwicz —Preceding undated comment added 20:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises/Archive_2&oldid=1136970243"