The idea that markets usually produce a optimal outcome is certainly austrian ( examples for this is the washington consensus). On the other hand, there are serveral proposals from 2008 - 09 on the size of the stimulus, eg [1], which argue that a stimulus should be something like twice the size of the actual stimulus. ( And additionally bailing out car companies is not exactly Keynesian, since aggregate demand is not about one specific industry.)
> The idea that markets usually produce a optimal outcome is certainly austrian
Im sorry this is not right. It is in fact dead wrong!
The austrian have from the VERY, VERY start objected to models that discribed market as perfect, or people as perfectly rational. Go into the internet and look up what austrians actually say about markets, google 'Market Process Theory'. It is actually the case that most of austrian theory trys to figure out how a groupe of ignorent humans like we are with our imperfection can creat such a complex structure of production or what Hayek called 'The extended order'
Why do people that have a bar half knowlage of economics, clame such wild things about a 120 year old tradition of economic thought.
The thing that most austrians clame, is that the market produces better results then a goverment influencing the market can that is because goverment does not have the knowlage (nor the insentive but that more public choice theory) to imporve the market outcome.
I am not claiming that austrians think markets are perfect. I did say, that austrians believe that markets produce optimal outcomes, compared to other possible organization structures. ( So quite exactly what you say in your last paragraph.)
The problem is that with optimal we usally mean theoreticly optimal in such debates. In terms of practical solution we speak of comperative advantage (in comperative institutional analysis).
[1]http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/the-story-of-the...