Talk:Austrian Business Cycle Theory: Difference between revisions
Pestergaines (talk | contribs) answer |
Pestergaines (talk | contribs) +res |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
An interesting resource is here, in case someone wants to gather evidence of the more statistical kind: | An interesting resource is here, in case someone wants to gather evidence of the more statistical kind: | ||
[http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/641 The impact of short-term interest rates on risk-taking: hard evidence] by Vasso P. Ioannidou, Steven Ongena and Jose Luis Peydro, October 2007. [[User:Pestergaines|Pestergaines]] 17:22, 26 January 2011 (CST) | [http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/641 The impact of short-term interest rates on risk-taking: hard evidence] by Vasso P. Ioannidou, Steven Ongena and Jose Luis Peydro, October 2007. [[User:Pestergaines|Pestergaines]] 17:22, 26 January 2011 (CST) | ||
[https://menghusblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/empirical-evidence-for-the-austrian-business-cycle-theory/ Empirical Evidence for the Austrian Business Cycle Theory] summarizes numerous studies on the empirical evidence for ABCT and malinvestment. [[User:Pestergaines|Pestergaines]] ([[User talk:Pestergaines|talk]]) 14:05, 29 July 2012 (MSD) | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
Latest revision as of 10:05, 29 July 2012
An interesting resource is here, in case someone wants to gather evidence of the more statistical kind: The impact of short-term interest rates on risk-taking: hard evidence by Vasso P. Ioannidou, Steven Ongena and Jose Luis Peydro, October 2007. Pestergaines 17:22, 26 January 2011 (CST)
Empirical Evidence for the Austrian Business Cycle Theory summarizes numerous studies on the empirical evidence for ABCT and malinvestment. Pestergaines (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2012 (MSD)
References
There needs to be a greater effort to attibute claims/statements in all article to peer-reviewed, academic sources. The Business Cycle article is useless for intellectual purposes due to the complete carelessness in sourcing. --LiberalCast (comment moved from Talk:Main Page)
Hallo LiberalCast,
in general I agree with you, we should be more careful to source claims and statements to their sources, the more prestigious the better. Their improvement is an ongoing process - that is what the wiki is for, after all.
However, I cannot agree with the "useless for intellectual purposes" claim on your part. Even if we were to agree, that peer-reviewed, academic sources are for all purposes better (which is debatable at best), it does not even remotely follow that a given page is 'useless'. Any carelessness is of course to blame on our part, and you would greatly help us by pointing out where we can improve things. Pestergaines 02:56, 9 March 2011 (CST)