Austrian School

1
Austrian School
Part of a series on the
Austrian
School
Business and economics
portal
v
t
e
[1]
Part of the Politics series on
Economic
liberalism
Capitalism portal
Economics portal
Politics portal
v
t
e
[2]
The Austrian School is a school of economic thought that is based on the analysis of the purposeful actions of
individuals (see methodological individualism).
[3][4][5]
It originated in late-19th and early-20th century Vienna with
the work of Carl Menger, Eugen von Bhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, and others.
[6]
Current-day economists
working in this tradition are located in many different countries, but their work is referred to as Austrian economics.
Among the theoretical contributions of the early years of the Austrian School are the subjective theory of value,
marginalism in price theory, and the formulation of the economic calculation problem, each of which has become an
accepted part of mainstream economics.
Many economists are critical of the current-day Austrian School and consider its rejection of econometrics, and
aggregate macroeconomic analysis to be outside of mainstream economic theory, or "heterodox." Austrians are
likewise critical of mainstream economics.
[7]
Although the Austrian School has been considered heterodox since the
late 1930s, it began to attract renewed academic and public interest starting in the 1970s.
Austrian School
2
Methodology
Main articles: Action axiom, Catallactics and Praxeology
The Austrian School theorizes that the subjective choices of individuals underlie all economic phenomena. Austrians
seek to understand the observed economy by examining the social ramifications of such individual choice. This
approach, termed methodological individualism, differs significantly from many other schools of economic thought,
which have placed less importance on individual knowledge, time, expectation, and other subjective factors and
focused instead on aggregate variables, equilibrium analysis, and the consideration of societal groups rather than
individuals.
Ludwig von Mises
In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, many diverse approaches and
theoretical orientations have developed among economists whose methodological
lineage can be traced back to the early Austrian School. For example, in 1949,
Ludwig von Mises codified his version of the subjectivist approach, which he
called "praxeology", in a book published in English as Human Action.
[8]
In it,
Mises presented an extensive statement of his method, and stated that praxeology
could be used to deduce a priori theoretical economic truths. Mises also argued
against the use of probabilities in economic models. According to Mises,
deductive economic thought experiment can yield conclusions which follow
irrefutably from the underlying assumptions and could not be inferred from
empirical observation or statistical analysis.
Since Mises time, many, but certainly not all, Austrian thinkers have accepted his
praxeological approach. Some have adopted alternative methodologies.
[9]
For
example, Fritz Machlup, Friedrich Hayek, and others, did not take Mises' strong a priori approach to economics.
[10]
Prof. Ludwig Lachmann, a radical subjectivist, also largely rejected Mises' formulation of Praxeology in favor of the
verstehende Methode (interpretive method) articulated by Max Weber.
Economist Paul A. Samuelson has written that most economists believe that economic conclusions reached by pure
logical deduction are limited and weak. According to Samuelson and economist Bryan Caplan, Mises' deductive
methodology (also embraced by Murray Rothbard and to a lesser extent by Mises' student, Israel Kirzner) was not
sufficient in and of itself. Caplan has written that the Austrian challenge to the realism of neoclassical assumptions
has helped work towards making those assumptions more plausible.
Starting in the 20th century, various Austrians incorporated models and mathematics into their analysis of the
economy. Austrian economist Steven Horwitz argues that Austrian methodology is consistent with macroeconomics
and that Austrian macroeconomics can be expressed in terms of microeconomic foundations.
[11]
Austrian economist
Roger Garrison argues that Austrian macroeconomic theory can be correctly expressed in terms of diagrammatic
models.
[12]
In 1944, Austrian economist Oskar Morgenstern presented a rigorous schematization of an ordinal utility
function (the Von NeumannMorgenstern utility theorem) in Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.
[13]
Austrian School
3
Fundamental tenets
Fritz Machlup listed the typical views of Austrian economic thinking.
(1) Methodological Individualism: In the explanation of economic phenomena we have to go back to the
actions (or inaction) of individuals; groups or "collectives" cannot act except through the actions of
individual members.
(2) Methodological Subjectivism: In the explanation of economic phenomena we have to go back to
judgments and choices made by individuals on the basis of whatever knowledge they have or believe to
have and whatever expectations they entertain regarding external developments and especially the
consequences of their own intended actions.
(3) Tastes and Preferences: Subjective valuations of goods and services determine the demand for them
so that their prices are influenced by (actual and potential) consumers.
(4) Opportunity Costs: The costs with which producers and other economic actors calculate reflect the
alternative opportunities that must be foregone; as productive services are employed for one purpose, all
alternative uses have to be sacrificed.
(5) Marginalism: In all economic designs, the values, costs, revenues, productivity, etc., are determined
by the significance of the last unit added to or subtracted from the total.
(6) Time Structure of Production and Consumption: Decisions to save reflect "time preferences"
regarding consumption in the immediate, distant, or indefinite future, and investments are made in view
of larger outputs expected to be obtained if more time-taking production processes are undertaken.
Two important tenets held by the Misesian branch of Austrian economics may also be added to the list:
(7) Consumer Sovereignty: The influence consumers have on the effective demand for goods and
services and, through the prices which result in free competitive markets, on the production plans of
producers and investors, is not merely a hard fact but also an important objective, attainable only by
complete avoidance of governmental interference with the markets and of restrictions on the freedom of
sellers and buyers to follow their own judgment regarding quantities, qualities, and prices of products
and services.
(8) Political Individualism: Only when individuals are given full economic freedom will it be possible to
secure political and moral freedom. Restrictions on economic freedom lead, sooner or later, to an
extension of the coercive activities of the state into the political domain, undermining and eventually
destroying the essential individual liberties which the capitalistic societies were able to attain in the
nineteenth century.
Austrian School
4
Contributions to economic thought
Opportunity cost
Main article: Opportunity cost
Friedrich von Wieser
The opportunity cost doctrine was first explicitly formulated by the Austrian
economist Friedrich von Wieser in the late 19th century. Opportunity cost is the
cost of any activity measured in terms of the value of the next best alternative
foregone (that is not chosen). It is the sacrifice related to the second best choice
available to someone, or group, who has picked among several mutually exclusive
choices. This view is currently held by contemporary economists of all
mainstream schools of thought.
Opportunity cost is a key concept in economics, and has been described as
expressing "the basic relationship between scarcity and choice". The notion of
opportunity cost plays a crucial part in ensuring that resources are used efficiently.
Capital and interest
See also: Capital and Interest, Marginalism, Neutrality of money and Time preference
Eugen von Bhm-Bawerk
The Austrian theory of capital and interest was first developed by Eugen von
Bhm-Bawerk. He stated that interest rates and profits are determined by two
factors, namely, supply and demand in the market for final goods and time
preference.
[14][15]
Bhm-Bawerk's theory was a response to Marx's labor theory of value and capital.
Bhm-Bawerk's theory attacked the viability of the labor theory of value in the
light of the transformation problem. His conception of interest countered Marx's
exploitation theory. Marx famously argued that capitalists exploit workers by
paying them less than the fruits of their labor sell for. Bohm-Bawerk countered
this claim by invoking the concept of time preference to demonstrate that
everyone values present consumption more than future consumption, and
therefore that a difference between the (smaller) salary laborers are paid in the
present and the (greater) price for which the goods they produce are later sold need not be exploitative.
Bhm-Bawerk's theory equates capital intensity with the degree of roundaboutness of production processes.
Bhm-Bawerk also argued that the law of marginal utility necessarily implies the classical law of costs. Some
Austrian economists therefore entirely reject the notion that interest rates are affected by liquidity
preference.Wikipedia:Citation needed
Inflation
See also: Monetary Inflation
Mises believed that money prices and wages will inevitably rise when the supply of money and bank credit is
increased. He therefore used the term "inflation" to mean an excessive increase of the money supply and not, as is
the common usage, to refer to price inflation. In Mises' view, inflation is the result of policies of the government or
central bank which result in an increase in the circulating money supply.
[16]
Wikipedia:No original research#Primary,
secondary and tertiary sources Mises wrote:
In theoretical investigation there is only one meaning that can rationally be attached to the expression
Inflation: an increase in the quantity of money (in the broader sense of the term, so as to include
Austrian School
5
fiduciary media as well), that is not offset by a corresponding increase in the need for money (again in
the broader sense of the term), so that a fall in the objective exchange-value of money must occur.
[17]
Economist Richard Timberlake criticized Mises' view that inflation must refer to an increase in the money supply.
Timberlake noted that economists since the time of John Stuart Mill have recognized the distinction between
increases in the money stock and increases in the general level of money prices. Timberlake stated that Mises' view
has repeatedly been proven false and that statistical measurement of the aggregate price level is necessary in order
test the empirical validity of Mises' theory.
Economist Paul Krugman has criticized Austrians' views on inflation and the failure to test their views against
empirical evidence. In late 2011 he pointed out that the monetary base had tripled in the previous three years, but the
average annual inflation rate was only 1.5 percent. There was no "devastating inflation" as predicted by Austrians. In
late 2012 he chided those who failed to "let the evidence speak" when it disproved the Austrian theory of inflation.
Krugman wrote: "If you believe that... expanding credit will simply result in too much money chasing too few goods,
and hence a lot of inflation... [Then] the failure of high inflation to materialize amounts to a decisive rejection of [the
Austrian] model."
[18]
Economic calculation problem
Main article: Economic calculation problem
Friedrich Hayek
The economic calculation problem refers to a criticism of socialism which was
first stated by Max Weber in 1920. Mises subsequently discussed Weber's idea
with his student Friedrich Hayek, who developed it in various works including
The Road to Serfdom.
[19]
The problem concerns the means by which resources are
allocated and distributed in an economy.
Austrian theory emphasizes the organizing power of markets. Hayek stated that
market prices reflect information, the totality of which is not known to any single
individual, which determines the allocation of resources in an economy. Because
socialist systems lack the individual incentives and price discovery processes by
which individuals act on their personal information, Hayek argued that the
decisions of socialist economic planners lack all of the knowledge to make
optimal decisions. Those who agree with this criticism view it is a refutation of
socialism and that it shows that it is not a viable or sustainable form of economic organization. The debate rose to
prominence in the 1920s and 1930s, and that specific period of the debate has come to be known by historians of
economic thought as The Socialist Calculation Debate.
[20]
Mises argued in a 1920 article "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" that the pricing systems in
socialist economies were necessarily deficient because if government owned the means of production, then no prices
could be obtained for capital goods as they were merely internal transfers of goods in a socialist system and not
"objects of exchange," unlike final goods. Therefore, they were unpriced and hence the system would be necessarily
inefficient since the central planners would not know how to allocate the available resources efficiently. This led him
to write "that rational economic activity is impossible in a socialist commonwealth." Economist Bryan Caplan has
written that Mises's has been criticized as overstating the strength of his case, in describing socialism as impossible,
rather than that it may need to establish non-market institutions to deal with a source of inefficiency.
Austrian School
6
Business cycles
Main article: Austrian business cycle theory
The Austrian theory of the business cycle ("ABCT") focuses on banks' issuance of credit as the cause of economic
fluctuations. Although later elaborated by Hayek and others, the theory was first set forth by Mises, who believed
that banks extend credit at artificially low interest rates, causing businesses to invest in relatively roundabout
production processes. Mises stated that this led to a misallocation of resources which he called malinvestment.
According to the theory, malinvestment is induced by banks' excessive and unsustainable expansion of credit to
businesses.
[21]
Businesses borrow at unsustainably low interest rates and overinvest in capital-intensive production
processes, which in turn leads to a diversion of investment from consumer goods industries to capital goods
industries. Austrians contend that this shift is unsustainable and must eventually be reversed, and that the
re-adjustment process will be more violent and disruptive the longer the putative malinvestment in capital goods
industries continues.
According to the Austrian view, the proportion of income allocated to consumption rather than saving is determined
by the interest rate and people's time preference, which is the degree to which they prefer present to future
satisfactions. According to this view, the pure interest rate is determined by the time preferences of the individuals in
society. If the market rate of interest offered by banks is set lower than this, business borrowing will be excessive
and will be allocated to malinvestment.
[22]
Newly extended credit thus malinvested will circulate from the business borrowers to the factors of production:
landowners, capital goods producers, and capital goods workers. Austrians state that, because individuals' time
preferences have not changed, the market will tend to reestablish the old proportions between current and future
production. Depositors will tend to remove cash from the banking system and spend it (not save it), banks will then
ask their borrowers for repayment, and the excessive capital goods will be liquidated at lower prices to retire the
now-unprofitable loans.Wikipedia:Citation needed
Role of government disputed
According to Mises, central banks enable the commercial banks to fund loans at artificially low interest rates,
thereby inducing an unsustainable expansion of bank credit and impeding any subsequent
contraction.
[23]
Wikipedia:Citation needed
[21][24]
Friedrich Hayek disagreed. Hayek did not favor laissez-faire in
banking and said that a freely competitive banking industry tends to be endogenously destabilizing and pro-cyclical,
mimicking the effects which Rothbard attributed to central bank policy. Hayek stated that the need for central
banking control was inescapable.
Criticism
Most research regarding the theory finds that it is inconsistent with empirical evidence. Economists such as Gordon
Tullock, Bryan Caplan, Milton Friedman, and Paul Krugman have said that they regard the theory as incorrect.
Austrian economist Ludwig Lachmann noted that the Austrian theory was rejected during the 1930s:
The promise of an Austrian theory of the trade cycle, which might also serve to explain the severity of
the Great Depression, a feature of the early 1930s that provided the background for Hayeks successful
appearance on the London scene, soon proved deceptive. Three giants Keynes, Knight and Sraffa
turned against the hapless Austrians who, in the middle of that black decade, thus had to do battle on
three fronts. Naturally it proved a task beyond their strength.
[25]
In 1969, Milton Friedman argued that the theory is not consistent with empirical evidence
[26]
and using newer data in
1993 reached the same conclusion.
[27]
In 1986, Austrian economist Roger Garrison reviewed Hayek's development
of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory and discussed the factors that have sustained interest in the theory despite its
longtime rejection by mainstream economics.
Austrian School
7
History
Jean-Baptiste Say
Origin of the name Austrian school
The School owes its name to members of the German Historical school of
economics, who argued against the Austrians during the Methodenstreit
("methodology struggle"), in which the Austrians defended the role of theory in
economics as distinct from the study or compilation of historical circumstance. In
1883, Menger published Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences with
Special Reference to Economics, which attacked the methods of the Historical
school. Gustav von Schmoller, a leader of the Historical school, responded with
an unfavorable review, coining the term "Austrian School" in an attempt to
characterize the school as outcast and provincial.
[28]
The label endured and was
adopted by the adherents themselves.
First Wave
Carl Menger
The school originated in Vienna, in the Austrian Empire. Carl Menger's 1871
book, Principles of Economics, is generally considered the founding of the
Austrian School. The book was one of the first modern treatises to advance the
theory of marginal utility. The Austrian School was one of three founding currents
of the marginalist revolution of the 1870s, with its major contribution being the
introduction of the subjectivist approach in economics.Wikipedia:Citing sources
While marginalism was generally influential, there was also a more specific
school that began to coalesce around Menger's work, which came to be known as
the Psychological School, Vienna School, or Austrian School.
[29]
Menger's contributions to economic theory were closely followed by those of
Bhm-Bawerk and Friedrich von Wieser. These three economists became what is
known as the "first wave" of the Austrian School. Bhm-Bawerk wrote extensive
critiques of Karl Marx in the 1880s and 1890s, as was part of the Austrians'
participation in the late 19th Century Methodenstreit, during which they attacked
the Hegelian doctrines of the Historical School.
Austrian School
8
Early Twentieth Century in Vienna
Several important Austrian economists trained at the University of Vienna in the 1920s and later participated in the
private seminar of Mises. These included Gottfried Haberler,
[30]
Friedrich Hayek, Fritz Machlup, Karl Menger (son
of Carl Menger),
[31]
Oskar Morgenstern,
[32]
Paul Rosenstein-Rodan
[33]
Abraham Wald, among others.
Later Twentieth century
Israel Kirzner
By the mid-1930s, most economists had embraced what they considered the
important contributions of the early Austrians. After World War II, Austrian
economics was disregarded or derided by most economists because it rejected
mathematical and statistical methods in the study of economics.
[34]
Fritz Machlup
quoted Hayek's statement, "the greatest success of a school is that it stops existing
because its fundamental teachings have become parts of the general body of
commonly accepted thought."
[35]
Mises' student, Israel Kirzner recalled that in
1954, when Kirzner was pursuing his PhD, there was no separate Austrian School
as such. When Kirzner was deciding which graduate school to attend, Mises had
advised him to accept an offer of admission at Johns Hopkins because it was a
prestigious university and Fritz Machlup taught there.
After 1940, Austrian economics can be divided into two schools of economic
thought, and the school "split" to some degree in the late 20th century. One camp
of Austrians, exemplified by Mises, regards neoclassical methodology to be irredeemably flawed; the other camp,
exemplified by Friedrich Hayek, accepts a large part of neoclassical methodology and is more accepting of
government intervention in the economy.
[36]
Henry Hazlitt wrote economics columns and editorials for a number of publications and wrote many books on the
topic of Austrian economics from the 1930s to the 1980s. Hazlitt's thinking was influenced by Mises. His book
Economics in One Lesson (1946) sold over a million copies, and he is also known for The Failure of the "New
Economics" (1959), a line-by-line critique of John Maynard Keynes's General Theory.
The reputation of the Austrian School rose in the late-20th century due in part to the work of Israel Kirzner and
Ludwig Lachmann at New York University, and to renewed public awareness of the work of Hayek after he won the
1974 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Hayek's work was influential in the revival of laissez-faire
thought in the 20th century.
Split among contemporary Austrians
According to economist Bryan Caplan, by the late twentieth century, a split had developed among those who
self-identify with the Austrian School. One group, building on the work of Hayek, follows the broad framework of
mainstream neoclassical economics, including its use of mathematical models and general equilibrium, and merely
brings a critical perspective to mainstream methodology influenced by the Austrian notions such as the economic
calculation problem and the independent role of logical reasoning in developing economic theory.
Austrian School
9
Murray Rothbard
A second group, following Mises and Rothbard, rejects the neoclassical theories
of consumer and welfare economics, dismisses empirical methods and
mathematical and statistical models as inapplicable to economic science, and
asserts that economic theory went entirely astray in the twentieth century; they
offer the Misesian view as a radical alternative paradigm to mainstream theory.
Caplan wrote that if "Mises and Rothbard are right, then [mainstream] economics
is wrong; but if Hayek is right, then mainstream economics merely needs to adjust
its focus."
Economist Leland Yeager discussed the late twentieth century rift and referred to
a discussion written by Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Joseph Salerno,
and others in which they attack and disparage Hayek. "To try to drive a wedge
between Mises and Hayek on [the role of knowledge in economic calculation],
especially to the disparagement of Hayek, is unfair to these two great men,
unfaithful to the history of economic thought" and went on to call the rift
subversive to economic analysis and the historical understanding of the fall of Eastern European communism.
In a 1999 book published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute (Mises Institute), Hans-Hermann Hoppe asserted that
Murray Rothbard was the leader of the "mainstream within Austrian Economics" and contrasted Rothbard with
Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek, whom he identified as a British empiricist and an opponent of the thought of Mises
and Rothbard. Hoppe acknowledged that Hayek was the most prominent Austrian economist within academia, but
stated that Hayek was an opponent of the Austrian tradition which led from Carl Menger and Bhm-Bawerk through
Mises to Rothbard.
Economists of the Hayekian view are affiliated with the Cato Institute, George Mason University (GMU), and New
York University, among other institutions. They include Peter Boettke, Roger Garrison, Steven Horwitz, Peter
Leeson and George Reisman. Economists of the Mises-Rothbard view include Walter Block, Hans-Hermann Hoppe,
Jess Huerta de Soto and Robert P. Murphy, each of whom is associated with the Mises Institute and some of them
also with academic institutions. According to Murphy, a "truce between (for lack of better terms) the GMU
Austro-libertarians and the Auburn Austro-libertarians" was signed around 2011.
[37]
Influence
Many theories developed by "first wave" Austrian economists have been absorbed into mainstream economics.
[38]
These include Carl Menger's theories on marginal utility, Friedrich von Wieser's theories on opportunity cost, and
Eugen von Bhm-Bawerk's theories on time preference, as well as Menger and Bhm-Bawerk's criticisms of
Marxian economics.Wikipedia:Citation needed
Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that the founders of the Austrian School "reached far
into the future from when most of them practiced and have had a profound and, in my judgment, probably an
irreversible effect on how most mainstream economists think in this country."
[39]
In 1987, Nobel Laureate James M.
Buchanan told an interviewer, "I have no objections to being called an Austrian. Hayek and Mises might consider me
an Austrian but, surely some of the others would not."
[40]
Chinese economist Zhang Weiying, supports some Austrian theories such as the Austrian theory of the business
cycle.
[41]
Currently, universities with a significant Austrian presence are George Mason University, New York
University, Loyola University New Orleans, and Auburn University in the United States and Universidad Francisco
Marroqun in Guatemala. Austrian economic ideas are also promoted by privately funded organizations such as the
Mises Institute, and the Cato Institute.
Austrian School
10
Criticisms
General criticisms
Mainstream economists have argued that Austrians are often averse to the use of mathematics and statistics in
economics.
Economist Bryan Caplan argues that many Austrians have not understood valid contributions of modern mainstream
economics, causing them to overstate their differences with it. For example, Murray Rothbard stated that he objected
to the use of cardinal utility in microeconomic theory. Caplan says that Rothbard did not understand the position he
was attacking, because microeconomic theorists go to great pains to show that their results are derived for any
monotonic transformation of an ordinal utility function, and do not entail cardinal utility. The result is that
conclusions about utility preferences hold no matter what values are assigned to them.Wikipedia:Citation needed
Economist Paul Krugman has stated that because Austrians do not use "explicit models" they are unaware of holes in
their own thinking. In February 2013, Krugman further criticized Austrian School economists on their failure to
revise their theory of inflation in light of their incorrect prophecies of government-induced inflation following the
2008 financial crisis.
Economist Benjamin Klein has criticized the economic methodological work of Austrian economist Israel M.
Kirzner. While praising Kirzner for highlighting shortcomings in traditional methodology, Klein argued that Kirzner
did not provide a viable alternative for economic methodology.
[42]
Economist Tyler Cowen has written that Kirzner's
theory of entrepreneurship can ultimately be reduced to a neoclassical search model and is thus not in the radical
subjectivist tradition of Austrian praxeology. Cowen states that Kirzner's entrepreneurs can be modeled in
mainstream terms of search.
Economist Jeffrey Sachs argues that among developed countries, those with high rates of taxation and high social
welfare spending perform better on most measures of economic performance compared to countries with low rates of
taxation and low social outlays. He concludes that Friedrich Hayek was wrong to argue that high levels of
government spending harms an economy, and "a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to
fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness." Austrian economist Sudha Shenoy responded by
arguing that countries with large public sectors have grown more slowly.
[43]
Methodology
Critics generally argue that Austrian economics lacks scientific rigor and rejects scientific methods and the use of
empirical data in modelling economic behavior.
[44]
Some economists describe Austrian methodology as being a
priori or non-empirical.
Economist Mark Blaug has criticized over-reliance on methodological individualism, arguing it would rule out all
macroeconomic propositions that cannot be reduced to microeconomic ones, and hence reject almost the whole of
received macroeconomics.
Economist Thomas Mayer has stated that Austrians advocate a rejection of the scientific method which involves the
development of empirically falsifiable theories. Furthermore, many supporters of using models of market behavior to
analyze and test economic theory argue that economists have developed numerous experiments that elicit useful
information about individual preferences.
Economist Leland Yeager rejects many favorite views of the Misesian group of Austrians, in particular, "These
include the specifics of their business-cycle theory, ultra-subjectivism in value theory and particularly in interest-rate
theory, their insistence on unidirectional causality rather than general interdependence, and their fondness for
methodological brooding, pointless profundities, and verbal gymnastics. Provoked by mainstream abuses of
mathematics, including the frequent merely decorative and pretentious use of symbols, some Austrians have wanted
to ban mathematics from economics. But is it not arrogant for someone who does not see how to use certain
Austrian School
11
techniques constructively to suppose that no one else will ever see how either? These Austrians should remember
how, in other contexts, they emphasize the openness of the future and scope for novelty."
Business cycle theory
Main article: Austrian business cycle theory
According to John Quiggin, most economists believe that the Austrian business cycle theory is incorrect because of
its incompleteness and other problems.Wikipedia:Please clarify Economists such as Gottfried von Haberler, Milton
Friedman, Gordon Tullock, Bryan Caplan, and Paul Krugman have argued that the theory is incorrect.
Theoretical objections
Some economists argue that Austrian business cycle theory requires bankers and investors to exhibit a kind of
irrationality, because the Austrian theory posits that investors will be fooled repeatedly (by temporarily low interest
rates) into making unprofitable investment decisions.
[45]
Bryan Caplan writes: "Why does Rothbard think
businessmen are so incompetent at forecasting government policy? He credits them with entrepreneurial foresight
about all market-generated conditions, but curiously finds them unable to forecast government policy, or even to
avoid falling prey to simple accounting illusions generated by inflation and deflation... Particularly in interventionist
economies, it would seem that natural selection would weed out businesspeople with such a gigantic blind spot."
Economist Paul Krugman has argued that the theory cannot explain changes in unemployment over the business
cycle. Austrian business cycle theory postulates that business cycles are caused by the misallocation of resources
from consumption to investment during "booms", and out of investment during "busts". Krugman argues that
because total spending is equal to total income in an economy, the theory implies that the reallocation of resources
during "busts" would increase employment in consumption industries, whereas in reality, spending declines in all
sectors of an economy during recessions. He also argues that according to the theory the initial "booms" would also
cause resource reallocation, which implies an increase in unemployment during booms as well.
In response, historian David Gordon argues that Krugman's analysis misrepresents Austrian theory. Gordon states,
"unemployment, as Austrians see matters, stems mainly from rigid wage rates. If workers accept a fall in wages,
liquidation of the boom is compatible with full employment."
[46]
Austrian economist Roger Garrison states that a
false boom caused by artificially low interest rates would cause a boom in consumption goods as well as investment
goods (with a decrease in "middle goods"), thus explaining the jump in unemployment at the end of a boom.
Garrison has also stated that capital allocated to investment goods cannot always be redeployed to create
consumption goods.
Economist Jeffery Hummel is critical of Hayek's explanation of labor asymmetry in booms and busts. He argues that
Hayek makes peculiar assumptions about demand curves for labor in his explanation of how a decrease in
investment spending creates unemployment. He also argues that the labor asymmetry can be explained in terms of a
change in real wages, but this explanation fails to explain the business cycle in terms of resource allocation.
Milton Friedman objected to the policy implications of the theory, stating the following in a 1998 interview:
I think the Austrian business-cycle theory has done the world a great deal of harm. If you go back to the
1930s, which is a key point, here you had the Austrians sitting in London, Hayek and Lionel Robbins,
and saying you just have to let the bottom drop out of the world. Youve just got to let it cure itself. You
cant do anything about it. You will only make it worse. You have Rothbard saying it was a great
mistake not to let the whole banking system collapse. I think by encouraging that kind of do-nothing
policy both in Britain and in the United States, they did harm.
[47]
Austrian School
12
Empirical objections
Hummel argues that the Austrian explanation of the business cycle fails on empirical grounds. In particular, he notes
that investment spending remained positive in all recessions where there are data, except for the Great Depression.
He argues that this casts doubt on the notion that recessions are caused by a reallocation of resources from industrial
production to consumption, since he argues that the Austrian business cycle theory implies that net investment
should be below zero during recessions. In response, Austrian economist Walter Block argues that the misallocation
during booms does not preclude the possibility of demand increasing overall.
[48]
In 1969, economist Milton Friedman, after examining the history of business cycles in the U.S., concluded that "The
Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false." He analyzed
the issue using newer data in 1993, and again reached the same conclusion.
Referring to Friedman's discussion of the business cycle, Austrian economist Roger Garrison stated, "Friedman's
empirical findings are broadly consistent with both Monetarist and Austrian views", and goes on to argue that
although Friedman's model "describes the economy's performance at the highest level of aggregation; Austrian
theory offers an insightful account of the market process that might underlie those aggregates."
[49]
Principal works
Capital and Interest by Eugen von Bhm-Bawerk
Individualism and Economic Order by Friedrich Hayek
Principles of Economics by Carl Menger
Human Action by Ludwig von Mises
Man, Economy, and State by Murray N. Rothbard
References and notes
[1] http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ w/ index. php?title=Template:Austrian_School_sidebar& action=edit
[2] http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ w/ index. php?title=Template:Neoliberalism_sidebar& action=edit
[3] Carl Menger, Principles of Economics, online at http:/ / www. mises. org/ etexts/ menger/ principles. asp
[4] Methodological Individualism at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/
methodological-individualism/ )
[5] Ludwig von Mises. Human Action, p. 11, "r. Purposeful Action and Animal Reaction". Referenced 2011-11-23.
[6] [6] Joseph A. Schumpeter, History of economic analysis, Oxford University Press 1996, ISBN 978-0195105599.
[7] Austrian Economics and the Mainstream: View from the Boundary (http:/ / mises. org/ journals/ qjae/ pdf/ qjae3_2_3. pdf), Roger E.
Backhouse
[8] [8] Ludwig von Mises, Nationalkonomie (Geneva: Union, 1940), p. 3; Human Action (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, [1949] 1998),
p. 3.
[9] Bruce J. Caldwell "Praxeology and its Critics: an Appraisal" History of Political Economy Fall 1984 16(3): 363379; (http:/ / public. econ.
duke.edu/ ~bjc18/ docs/ Praxeology and Its Critics. pdf)
[10] Richard N. Langlois, "FROM THE KNOWLEDGE OF ECONOMICS TO THE ECONOMICS OF KNOWLEDGE: FRITZ MACHLUP
ON METHODOLOGY AND ON THE "KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY" Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology,
Volume 3, pp. 225235 (http:/ / web.uconn.edu/ ciom/ Machlup Knowledge (1985). pdf)
[11] Horwitz, Steven: Microfoundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective (2000)|Routledge
[12] http:/ / library. mises.org/ books/ Roger%20W%20Garrison/ Austrian%20Macroeconomics%20A%20Diagrammatical%20Exposition. pdf
Garrison, Roger: Austrian Macroeconomics: A Diagrammatical Exposition (1978)|Institute for Humane Studies
[13] [13] Neumann, John von and Morgenstern, Oskar Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ. Princeton University Press. 1944
[14] Bhm-Bawerk, Eugen Ritter von; Kapital Und Kapitalizns. Zweite Abteilung: Positive Theorie des Kapitales (1889). Translated as Capital
and Interest. II: Positive Theory of Capital with appendices rendered as Further Essays on Capital and Interest.
[15] http:/ / www.econlib.org/ library/ Enc/ bios/ BohmBawerk. html
[16] Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit (http:/ / mises. org/ books/ Theory_Money_Credit/ Contents. aspx)", ISBN
978-0-913966-70-9
[17] [17] The Theory of Money and Credit, Mises (1912, [1981], p. 272)
[18] Paul Krugman, Varieties of Error (http:/ / krugman.blogs. nytimes. com/ 2012/ 11/ 29/ varieties-of-error/ ), 2012.
Austrian School
13
[19] F. A. Hayek, (1935), "The Nature and History of the Problem" and "The Present State of the Debate," om in F. A. Hayek, ed. Collectivist
Economic Planning, pp. 140, 201243.
[20] The socialist calculation debate (http:/ / cepa.newschool. edu/ het/ essays/ paretian/ social. htm)
[21] Theory of Money and Credit (http:/ / www. econlib.org/ library/ Mises/ msT. html), Ludwig von Mises, Part III, Part IV
[22] Theory of Money and Credit (http:/ / www. econlib.org/ library/ Mises/ msT. html), Ludwig von Mises, Part II
[23] The Mystery of Banking (http:/ / www.mises.org/ Books/ mysteryofbanking. pdf), Murray Rothbard, 1983
[24] America's Great Depression, Murray Rothbard
[25] [25] Ludwig M. Lachmann, in The Market as an Economic Process (Oxford, 1986), p. ix
[26] Friedman, Milton. "The Monetary Studies of the National Bureau, 44th Annual Report". The Optimal Quantity of Money and Other Essays.
Chicago: Aldine. pp. 261284.
[27] Friedman, Milton. "The 'Plucking Model' of Business Fluctuations Revisited". Economic Inquiry: 171177.
[28] "Mengers approach haughtily dismissed by the leader of the German Historical School, Gustav Schmoller, as merely Austrian, the
origin of that label led to a renaissance of theoretical economics in Europe and, later, in the United States." Peter G. Klein, 2007; in the
Foreword to Principles of Economics, Carl Menger; trns. James Dingwall and Bert F. Hoselitz, 1976; Ludwig von Mises Institute, Alabama;
2007; ISBN 978-1-933550-12-1
[29] Israel M. Kirzner (1987). "Austrian School of Economics," The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 1, pp. 145151.
[30] http:/ / mises.org/ page/ 1452/ Biography-of-Gottfried-Haberler-19011995
[31] http:/ / www.iit. edu/ csl/ am/ about/ menger/ about.shtml
[32] http:/ / library. duke. edu/ rubenstein/ findingaids/ morgenst/
[33] http:/ / archives.lse. ac.uk/ Record.aspx?src=CalmView. Catalog& id=COLL+ MISC+ 0324 Archive at London School of Economics
[34] " Austrian economics and the mainstream: View from the boundary (http:/ / www. springerlink. com/ content/ kq577622488v4447/ fulltext.
pdf)" by Roger E. Backhouse, $34 to view
[35] http:/ / mises.org/ daily/ 1700/ Ludwig-von-Mises-A-Scholar-Who-Would-Not-Compromise Homage to Mises by Fritz Machlup 1981
[36] http:/ / mises.org/ journals/ qjae/ pdf/ qjae7_1_3.pdf
[37] Robert Murphy blog, December 31, 2011. (http:/ / consultingbyrpm. com/ blog/ 2011/ 12/ in-defense-of-the-mises-institute. html)
[38] [38] It has also influenced related disciplines such as Law and Economics, see. K. Grechenig, M. Litschka, Law by Human Intent or Evolution?
Some Remarks on the Austrian School of Economics' Role in the Development of Law and Economics, European Journal of Law and
Economics (EJLE) 2010, vol. 29 (1), p. 57-79.
[39] [39] Greenspan, Alan. "Hearings before the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Financial Services." U.S. House of Representatives'
Committee on Financial Services. Washington D.C.. 25 July 2000.
[40] An Interview with Laureate James Buchanan (http:/ / mises. org/ journals/ aen/ aen9_1_1. asp) Austrian Economics Newsletter: Volume 9,
Number 1; Fall 1987
[41] Weiyin, Zhang, "Completely bury Keynesianism", http:/ / finance. sina. com. cn/ 20090217/ 10345864499_3. shtml (February 17, 2009)
[42] Klein, Benjamin. "Book review: Competition and Entrepreneurship" (by Israel M. Kirzner, University of Chicago Press, 1973) Journal of
Political Economy. Vol. 83: No. 6, 13051306, December 1975.
[43] Sudha R. Shenoy, Are High Taxes the Basis of Freedom and Prosperity?, http:/ / www. thefreemanonline. org/ featured/
are-high-taxes-the-basis-of-freedom-and-prosperity/
[44] "Rules for the study of natural philosophy", , from Book 3, The System of the World.
[45] Problems with Austrian Business Cycle Theory (http:/ / www. reasonpapers. com/ pdf/ 05/ rp_5_4. pdf)
[46] Hangover Theory: How Paul Krugman Has Misconceived Austrian Theory David Gordon Mises Daily (http:/ / mises. org/ daily/ 3579)
[47] Interview in Barron's Magazine, August 24, 1998 archived at Hoover Institution (http:/ / www. hoover. org/ publications/ hoover-digest/
article/ 6459)
[48] http:/ / www.reasonpapers. com/ pdf/ 30/ rp_30_4. pdf
[49] [49] Milton Friedman, "The 'Plucking Model' of Business Fluctuations Revisited" Economic Inquiry April, 1993
Austrian School
14
Further reading
Alejandro Agafonow (2012). The Austrian Dehomogenization Debate, or the Possibility of a Hayekian Planner,
(http:/ / ideas. repec. org/ a/ taf/ revpoe/ v24y2012i2p273-287. html) Review of Political Economy, Vol. 24, No.
02.
Harald Hagemann, Tamotsu Nishizawa, and Yukihiro Ikeda, eds. Austrian Economics in Transition: From Carl
Menger to Friedrich Hayek (Palgrave Macmillan; 2010) 339 pages
Stephen Littlechild, ed. (1990). Austrian economics, 3 v. Edward Elgar. Description (http:/ / www. e-elgar. co. uk/
bookentry_mainUS. lasso?id=682) and scroll to chapter preview links (http:/ / books. google. com/
books?id=XoZXUkYGj-oC& printsec=frontcover& source=gbs_v2_summary_r& cad=0#v=onepage& q&
f=false) for v. 1.
External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Austrian School.
Austrian School (http:/ / wiki. mises. org/ wiki/ Austrian_School) at Mises Wiki
Austrian School (http:/ / www. dmoz. org/ Science/ Social_Sciences/ Economics/ Schools_of_Thought/
Austrian_School/ ) at DMOZ
Article Sources and Contributors
15
Article Sources and Contributors
Austrian School Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=617627255 Contributors: "Swine"Flu=StolenFarmland, $atan's$pawn, $oul$old, 0nullbinary0, 11wikiman11,
213.122.236.xxx, 62.78.132.xxx, A.R., ATD, AaronS, AbsolutDan, Addshore, Adn1990, Adriansrfr, AdultSwim, AgarwalSumeet, Agbook, Ahkeeler, Akldawgs, Al E., Albericht, Alex Bakharev,
Alfy32, AlphaRed3, Amadeus226, Amanski, Amritasenray, Anawasm, Andonic, Anna Lincoln, AnnaFrance, Anon4567, Antandrus, Anthon.Eff, ArableLand, Ariel., Arjayay, Arkuat,
AsianWimp, Atethnekos, Auric, AustrianButOpen-Minded, Autopilot, Averros, Awesomeeconomist, BD2412, BanksAreGods, Bastin, BellCurveBlues, Benbest, Bender235, Bengalski, Big
Brother 1984, BigK HeX, Bility, Binksternet, Bkwillwm, Bluemoose, Bob A, Bobblewik, BritishZombies, Brona, Bronx Discount Liquor, Brusegadi, Bryan Derksen, Bsadowski1, Bucketsofg,
Budija, BuySilverKillTheBanksters, Byelf2007, C9900, Calion, Carolmooredc, Cedders, Cenarium, CharlotteWebb, Chetrasho, Childhoodsend, Chris Capoccia, ChrisGualtieri, Christofurio,
Closedmouth, Cmdrjameson, Coccyx Bloccyx, Cocytus, CoffeeWithMarkets, Cohaerens, CommonsDelinker, Conversion script, Corduroy1982, CormanoSanchez, CorruptCounterfeiters, Count
Truthstein, Courcelles, Creativename, Crenner, Cretog8, Cwjennings, DA1, Damnedkingdom, Darius Bacon, Dark Charles, Dark Kyle, Darkstar1st, Darth Wombat, DataDarkLBMA, David
Nelson, DavidCBryant, Dayewalker, De2min2, Dean001, Debresser, DecadesAtBernies, Deicas, DemitreusFrontwest, DemocraticLuntz, DerRichter, Deryck Chan, Devandenesse, Dewritech,
DickClarkMises, Discospinster, Doopdoop, Drbogdan, Dullfig, Dundas plc, Dusty relic, Dwchin, Dylan Lake, EJM86, Eclipsael, EconomicIllusions, EdJohnston, Edward, Edward"Ned"Kelly,
Elockid, Elsendero, Enchanter, Epigrammed, Equilibrium007, EricdeBear, Error -128, Ethilien, EuroFiatTrashed, Evercat, FRB123, FalseGodsBetray, Fare, FargoWells, Fennec, Fephisto,
Financestudent, FiscalFarce, Flextronics, Flying Pete, Fortheloveofbacon, FractionalReserveRobbery, Frederic Bastiat, Fredericks, Fsol, Fubar Obfusco, GRuban, Gamma1776, Gamsbart,
Gassho, Gay Cdn, GayTime, GenericAnonIP, GeorgeLouis, Ghewgill, Gilgamesh79, Gobonobo, Gobstomper, God'sRevengeIsToday'sEnvironment, Goethean, GoldManTookFtKnox, GrEp,
Graham87, Granola Bars, GreedImmolatesItself, GreedyCapitalist, Gregalton, Grimhelm, Ground Zero, Gugganij, Gui le Roi, Gurch, Gwen Gale, GypsyBanksters, Gzornenplatz, H0riz0n,
Haemo, Hannes H. Gissurarson, HansonWasFromQLD, Hcheney, Herunar, Historian932, Huw Powell, Ibemonty2000, Id4abel, Ikilled007, Imf980, IndistinctEditor, InspectorTiger, Intangible,
Introman, Iridescent, JASpencer, JBHD, JEN9841, JLMadrigal, JPX7, JRR Trollkien, James Haughton, JamesReyes, Janey Dowerstruffel, JayJasper, Jdhunt, Jeffro77, Jerryseinfeld, Jhanley,
Jiang, Jni, Jo3sampl, John Quiggin, John5246, JohnDoe0007, Johncapistrano, JonHarder, Jonkerz, Joseph Solis in Australia, Josephholsten, Joshmarq, Jrockets, Justinc, Justinw303, Jweiss11,
Jwpegler, Katydidit, Kazvorpal, Kborer, KeepGoldThrowBondsAway, Ketiltrout, Keylar25, KeynesianLeninistCensors, KhooEatsHisOwnPoo, Kiefer.Wolfowitz, Kinghajj, Kjmonkey,
KnightRider, KrJnX, Krisztin Pintr, Krukouski, Kuru, Kvn8907, Kwamikagami, LCE1506, LK'sPatsy, Lagrandebanquesucre, Lambanog, Larklight, Larry_Sanger, Laurenjf, Lawrencekhoo,
Leandrod, Lectert, Li-sung, Lia Todua, Liftarn, LikeLakers2, LilHelpa, Lkmvpvwj, Logan, LordHaveMercyOnTheSoulsOfEmbezzlers, Lotje, LoudNotes, LoweLeif, Ludovic Sesim, Macarenses,
Macdonald-ross, Madhava 1947, Magioladitis, Malinaccier, Manscher, Mark Arsten, Mark Borgschulte, Mark viking, MartinMichlmayr, MastCell, Materialscientist, Mato, Matt O'Lehry,
Matthew Proctor, Mav, MeUser42, Memotype, Michael Hardy, Michael.suede, MikeWazowski, Mirrormundo, Misessus, MisterDub, Mmahoney393, Moe Epsilon, Mohammadgani,
Mommy2012, Monobi, Morphh, MuZemike, Muhandes, Mvanwinkle, N2e, N6n, NJA, Nat Krause, NawlinWiki, Nbarth, Neo-Jay, Nielsio, NigelR, Nikodemos, NimNick, Ninjalemming,
Nixeagle, Nodrogj, Noisy, Nomoskedasticity, North8000, Nstannik, NuclearWarfare, Nyopallo, OilyChernobyl, Omnipaedista, Oncenawhile, OnlyAfterDeathDoesASGetRespect, Operation
Spooner, OrderWithoutLaw, PLooB, POTA, Pairadox, Palica, Patrick, PatrickFlaherty, Paul Richter, Pearlg, Per Hedetun, Peregrine981, PersecutedAustrians, Pestergaines, Phelbich, Philwelch,
Polisher of Cobwebs, Politician, PonziWasNotSuperman, PraxisConsensus, Premitive1, Professor marginalia, Psyoptix, PtAuAg, PyramidsOrFood?, QE2Infinity!, QueryEverything, R'n'B,
RBrancusi, RG415WBFA, RJII, Radicalsubversiv, RafaelG, RafaelMinuesa, Rainbow Shifter, Ralthor, Ramehart, Ravensfire, RayBirks, Rdfuerle, Reaper Eternal, Reign of Toads, Remember,
Revcasy, Revisor2011, Rich Farmbrough, Richard Ebeling, Rjensen, Rjwilmsi, Robertvan1, Robocracy, Romandebasement, Ron Paul...Ron Paul..., Rothbardanswer, Rusirious13,
Rustydangerfield, Rvissers, SPECIFICO, Salon Essahj, Sam Hocevar, Samuel Marks, Sandstein, Santiago telom, Sardanaphalus, Satori Son, Scholastic Opponent, Scshute, Sean chile, SeekFind,
Sfan00 IMG, Shadowthedog, Shirahadasha, Shrikarsan, SilverLongsWillBreakTheBanksters, Sirmont, Sitush, Skipsievert, Skomorokh, SlamDiego, Smartal, Smithdanj, Solid State,
Somedifferentstuff, Sonofecthelion, Spartaz, Srich32977, Steeletrap, Stelian, StillStanding-247, Stirling Newberry, SturmTiger42, TAnthony, Tacitus Prime, Taion, Taonga99, TaxPaysParasites,
Tbhotch, Teeninvestor, Template namespace initialisation script, Terra Novus, ThatProLibertyGuy, The Banner, The Four Deuces, The morgawr, TheElephant'sRoom, TheFreeloader,
TheSolutionIsEvenMoreDebt, Thingg, Thismightbezach, Thomasmeeks, TimothyDon-HughMak, Tom servo, Topher.sg, Torkillbruland, Tparameter, Traxinet, Trey111, Trialsanderrors,
Trovatore, TruthAndZealotryDon'tMix, TruthComesFromAGunBoat, Tucci78, Tuomas Toivonen, Twas Now, Ultramarine, UnrecognizedProphetOfDoom, Urewrong, User2004,
UserAccount001, VMav92, Valentimd, Velella, Versageek, VeryVerily, Vision Thing, WahnF, WarningFinancialTsunamiAhead, WatchinTheTideRollAway, We'reFreakingDoomed!,
WeOweItToOurselves, Weakopedia, WhyAreLeftiesAllZealots?, WhyMeLord?, Wikibofh, William Avery, Wingspeed, Winterus, Woohookitty, Wormbread, Wragge, Wyss, Xday, Xgoni,
Yworo, Zachorious, Zawersh, Zenwhat, Zhen Jin, Zoicon5, ZombieBank, ed, , 834 anonymous edits
Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors
File:Emblem-money.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Emblem-money.svg License: GNU General Public License Contributors: perfectska04
File:EffectOfTariff.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:EffectOfTariff.svg License: unknown Contributors: Austin512
File:Ludwig von Mises.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ludwig_von_Mises.jpg License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Ludwig von Mises
Institute
File:1wieser.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:1wieser.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Davepape, Dodo, Libertad y Saber, Polarlys
File:1Bawerk.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:1Bawerk.png License: Public Domain Contributors: -
File:Friedrich Hayek portrait.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Friedrich_Hayek_portrait.jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors:
Original uploader was DickClarkMises at en.wikipedia. Later version(s) were uploaded by Beao at en.wikipedia.
File:Jean-baptiste Say.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Jean-baptiste_Say.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Echiner, Mu, TommyBee, 1 anonymous edits
File:CarlMenger.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:CarlMenger.png License: Public Domain Contributors: mises.org
File:Israel Kirzner.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Israel_Kirzner.jpg License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: Mises Institute
File:MurrayBW.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:MurrayBW.jpg License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Contributors: Ludwig von Mises Institute
Image:Commons-logo.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Commons-logo.svg License: logo Contributors: Anomie
License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/