Talk:Inflation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Business (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Economics (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Inflation is perhaps best explained using RtNmP[edit]

Inflation, when you change your observer viewpoint from rock-bottom or stellar heights to neutral mid mode level, is nothing more than a re-calibration onto the mid-mode operating neutral between rock-bottom & stellar high. It is the mean sum-product return to neutral of each and every platform that pertains to that valuation, when you subtract the increment. Lot´s of people have a tendency to multiple that out (Divide that out), however it is not a multiplication process, inflation being an addicion and not a percentage, due succesive depletion & saturation product cycles where that never returns to neutral untill there is a paper devaluation.

  • ∑∏(midmode operating point)/N

Terms:

Economy is a sum-zero game, and a sum zero game is inherently a small signal onto a neutrally biased operating point.

(ps: don´t start with your eternal internal robotic heckling about original research et all. All you need is a capacity to think through the terms mentioned above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.167.177 (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

NAIRU[edit]

Isn't NAIRU to do with monetarist economics, rather than Keynesian? MFlet1 (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Cost-Push Inflation[edit]

Why is this included as one of the negative effects of inflation? Isn't it just a tad circular to argue that inflation is caused by inflation?

little change, money supply growth[edit]

Hello, i proppose to change the second sentence: "Economists generally believe that high rates of inflation and hyperinflation are caused by an excessive growth of the money supply.[6] However, money supply growth does not necessarily cause inflation." in: "However, money supply growth does not necessarily cause inflation from a more distinguished sight." or "However, money supply growth does not necessarily cause inflation from another point of view." Or something like that, cause the common definition of Inflation doesnt fit with the meaning of the sentence now (in my opinion). I dont know what this sight is intended to be, but when I imagine a pool of comparable units spread over the world and every unit is bound in a certain way with all assets, then i believe any rise of the number of units (along with a constant number of assets) will have the äquivalent effect of inflation. sry my english, greetings from austria --194.118.178.167 (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A quicky.[edit]

Any of you good folk have IQ´s above 100? I ask, because you do have such a large tendency to use the same terms that you are explaining to explain the term that you are describing and thereby and through fall foul onto a circular definition where poop is poop because it is poop.

Europe wasn´t cash starved in world war II, nor I, nor EVER, it was starved of trust relationships onto a pertinent sustaining future where THE economic unit REMAINED purchasing parity sustaining.

In very clear terms, they had a lack of pertinent trust in aristocrats, governments, and the quote subsidian wellfair onto aristocrats to sustain their offspring through having mated with their own sisters.

Do attempt to use at least a modicum of highschool third to last grade thought capacity, no matter, if you where a flunky then, just as you are a flunky now. Being GIVEN a high end function because your daddy married his sister and had you, doesn´t imply that you have what it takes, it applies that your daddy seeked out where to place you, in the hope you would NOT marry your sister (or brother).

Stop the foolish pretense in the presumption that cash has valoration, it doesn´t, it´s paper snippance that are in a direct symbolic relationship to current and past do, having accomplished, being concretely direct.

Review some historical movies if you like, the ones where a furr coat goes for five pence, due the bearer having been shot attempting to purchase their way with gold, silver, in times of famine.

Lousy times these, when the ohhh so alleged educational system is shown to have been ohhh so lacking in education.

Cheers.

Cheers, may the self referencial loops make you crash & burn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.189.225 (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)