Talk:Inflation

Template:Bounty Template:Bounty

What's the deal?

I have to admit I'm not really following here. Gregalton says he doesn't own the site and so far, he has done nothing to indicate the opposite. Nor do I understand what "owning" a site is supposed to mean.

As for myself, I'm pretty much done with my contributions to this article. My main objective was to make sure the Austrian School had decent representation, I never sought to usurp or diminish the main stream view, however unsound and illogical I personally think it is. I'm content with the fact that when ordinary people from now on looks up "inflation" on the English Wikipedia, they'll see three things:

1. that inflation does not not mean rise in the general level of prices, that is merely the main stream view.

2. the origin of the term "inflation"

3. brief descriptions of the Austrian view along with externally linked footnotes to books and articles written by Austrians

That being the case, I can live with the fact that Keynesianism is front and centre, although I'll never understand who anyone can take Keynesianism seriously after all that has happend the last 100 years or so. It is enough that now people will know that the main stream view isn't the only one.

I'm also not clear what the kerfuffle is about: my point about ownership was specifically related to the WP policy, which is that no-one (including me) "owns" an article and the issues that arise when editors (erroneously) believe that they do. See wp:own.

I don't understand the point about "merely" the mainstream view. The mainstream view is (pretty much by definition) the mainstream definition.

I don't see in the links or references support for the view that the "original" definition is an increase in the money supply - can you specify which source says this?

As an honest question, what I have never understood about the Austrian definition is the disregard for velocity of money as a fundamental part of the cause of inflation. It is well-understood and well-known that inflation (as measured) is not driven just by the amount of money, but also by velocity, and (as I have seen in presented, although I've missed something) the Austrian view either ignores this point or simply chooses to assume that velocity is constant.

As for my edits and approach here, it's simply that an article about the mainstream definition should not pay undue attention to non-mainstream views. That's not to say or to argue they should not appear, but they should be roughly in line with their significance - which is of course something not everyone will agree on.

By the way, wikipedia practice is usually to put new sections at the bottom. You can do so by clicking the tab at the top marked "new section". Best regards.--Gregalton (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton "owns" this site

Nobody owns articles on Wikipedia, it is a free, web based encyclopedia, the whole point of which is that people with knowledge of and interest in various subjects contribute to it. No one person has the right to dictate what a specific entry is supposed to say. Every bit of text I've added has been substantiated with references, and each and every one of my references have an external link to the book or article in question. There is absolutely no reason for deleting any of the text I've added, none what so ever. Certainly not by claiming "ownership" of article.

As for the lead. Since the Austrian School is mentioned in the very first paragraph, it stands to reason that it is also mentioned in the second, which deals with the so called feud between various main stream factions. There is absolutely no scientific basis for exluding the one sentence reference to the Austrian School, and the deletion will therefore not be tolerated.

Really, why is it so horrible to give the readers the whole story? The main stream view is still front and centre throughout the article. If you have any scientific disagreements with any of my contributions, please make them known on the Talk page first. This bullying attitude does not become anyone involved with Wikipedia.

-Misessus

Misessus, take my word for it: Gregalton "owns" this page and quite a few others. There is theory and then there is what happens in practice. Take my word for it. You will still find out. Just do as Gregalton says, and you will be ok. It makes things much easier. What is important is what Gregalton will allow you to put on Wikipedia. Kjkkkjj (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Misessus, there is absolutely no way in this world that you will add something to the inflation article if Gregalton does not want you to. So, to avoid a lot of waste of your time, see if Gregalton agrees. If he does not, then just take it off. It has never happened in the past, and it won´t happen with you either. Kjkkkjj (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Misessus, click on Gregalton´s name and on Talk next to his name and read what he is all about. It will save you a lot of work and time. Kjkkkjj (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Kjkkkjj

Thank you very much for the head's up, I really do appriciate it. However, as there is no scientific or academic grounds for deleting the one sentence reference in the lead, I will make sure it stays there. Doing so, I am well within the rules and general conduct of Wikipedia. If Gregalton thinks that I am wrong and really is as powerful as you make him out to be, he can have my user account suspended, thus preventing me from adding the Austrian view to the article and sending a message to all other Austrians to stay away from Inflation article. But I can't imagine any Wikipedian taking such action and if Gregalton or anyone else can present actual grounds for the adjustments made, I will of course comply. However, so far such grounds have not been presented, nor can I at this point imagine what those grounds could be.

Also, I think I've shown that I'm quite open for discussion, so there really is no resaon for just deleting this or that before discussing it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 14:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Misessus, there are suppose to be Wikipedia rules. They do not always apply in this article and other articles that Gregalton "owns". What counts is what Gregalton will allow. The Wikipedia game is a power game. A person like Gregalton may be a 17 year old first year economics student. Some editors here may be 14 year old kids - or even younger. We will never know. That is why Wikipedia has no credibility in any scientific field. It is better you are forewarned. It will save you a lot of frustration.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Kjkkkjj, you are quite right, Wikipedia is not a source to be used in scientific or academic debate. However, it is the very fact that it is aimed at the public for the public it is so important to get the whole story told. Many ordinary people browse onto Wikipedia for a quick checkup and hardly anyone question what they get. I've actually been in more than one discussion, in which people vehemently have referred to Wikipedia's article on inflation. That is what prompted me to add the Austrian view, so that next time someone wants to look up inflation on Wikipedia, he'll at least know that the definition heralded by the media, politicians and central bankers isn't necessarily true. I do thank you for your notice about Gregalton, but I'm confident he'll see the merit in my argument. And how do you get to "own" articles on Wikipedia anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 18:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Watch Gregalton operate over a long period of time. He knows most of the Wikipedia rules and he uses them against new editors like you or he refrains from informing you under which Wikipedia rule you can get your addition accepted. Knowing the Wikipedia rules gives you a lot of power on Wikipedia.

You used the word "bullying". At least you caught on very quickly. Let´s wait and see what Gregalton is going to do with you. I have already seen quite a few knowledgeable editors leave Wikipedia because of Gregalton´s attitude. I have also seen articles completely adulterated by editors as a reaction against Gregalton. Those adulterated articles remain on Wikipedia when those editors also leave because of Gregalton.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Even some parts of this Inflation article have been adulterated in this fasion and remain in this adulterated mode at the moment. I could see how and when it was done. Gregalton´s deficient knowledge about inflation prevents him from realizing which parts have been adulterated. This reduces the value of this article to the public. Unfortunately Gregalton "owns" this article and there is nothing that can be done about it.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, I haven't paid much attention to the rest of the article, but concentrated on my own contributions. In my view, the best thing to do is to write about the views of the economic school you are familiar with, and let others write about the view of the other schools. The most important thing to know about inflation is, in my opinion, that it once was a clearly defined, undisputed term used in the economic science. Nowadays, some schools have redifined it, as they've redifined the term "competition". This took place when main stream economists wanted to make economics "more scientific", by applying the methods and style of the natural sciences.

Anyways, could you point out the sections in this article that have been "adulturated" and how what form this "adulteration" has taken?

-Misessus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.12.194 (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Kjkkkjj: I don't get it, Nicholaas (or is it Karma?). Are you accusing me of owning the article (which I've denied), policing it too much, or not policing it enough? Or is it really about renewing personal attacks?

At any rate, you're right: I don't have time to continually remove gibberish. But I will try.--Gregalton (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Misessus, as you have now been properly introduced to the owner of this article and you can see his style in the comment above, I will leave you to your journey of discovery here on Wikipedia. It certainly is a journey of discovery. Neither Wikipedia nor Gregalton is what they say they are or what they appear to be. Good luck. You seem to be quite an experienced person. I am sure you will work out a way of dealing with Gregalton and Wikipedia. On the other hand you may also get tired of the two of them quite soon.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion comes first

Gregalston, you do not delete someone else's text before consulting with the author first! You claimed that it "Too much detail on Austrian view for lead)". It was one bloody sentence, which read "In contrast to these two camps, the Austrian School maintains that inflation is a distinct action taken by the state, meaning the increase of the supply of monetary units (inflating the money supply)". This belongs in the lead. Do not force your own personal opinions onto the Wikipedia community and this article.

Furthermore, the reference [8] covers the entire original definition, meaning the both the two first sentences.

As for your other contributions in the "Original definition" paragraph, they were quite good.

But again, if you have a problem with what has been published in the article, you take it up here first. You simply cannot go around deleting other peoples' texts. I can't believe I actually have to point this out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 10:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on revision

Dear Kjkkkjj,

stop deleting text from the article. You stated that "Simply increasing the money supply is not inflation.". According to Austrian School and original defintion, inflation is a distinct action (the verb being "inflate"). it is one of the three ways the state can raise money (the other two being borrowing and taxing). Also, according to the original definition, increasing the money supply is exactly what inflation is. When you inflate the money supply, you increase it.

Now please stop forcing your own personal views on this article. The main stream view is still centre stage, I am merely adding the Austrian view to this article, as the Austrian School is the oldest continual school of economic thought today and the only one that retains the original defintion of the word "inflation".

-Misessus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 06:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to an academic debate

Dear Kjkkkjj,

I normally don't debate with people who actually calls his opponent "Hitler" and makes references to the Holocaust, but for you I'll make an exception.

Fiat money. Austrians favour commodity backed money. In fact, most of them favour a 100 % gold standard. One of the main reasons for this is that under a 100 % gold standard, the state would not be able to create endless amount of new money out of thin air. Fiat currency, such that is used today, gives the state unlimited ability to inflate the money supply. Thanks to the fractional reserve system, the subsequent credit expansion is completely out of control. This in turn lead to the erosion of the currency and sets off the boom-bust cycle. Over the past 100 years, there have been several examples of this, most notably the massive inflation induced boom leading up to the crash of 1929.

So yes, my dear friend, me and all other Austrians understand fiat money extremly well. That is why we oppose it so adamantly. Few things have had such distastrous consequenses as the adoption of fiat currency. It has always and everywhere been abused beyond belief, without any exception. Moreover, hyperinflation can only come about under a de jure or de facto fiat money system. Under a 100 % gold standard and 100 % reserve system, such as it used to be, inflation would be virtually non existant. On that note, I would like to point out that the inflation in Zimbabwe is well over 2 million percent. According to the main stream definition, this would be due to wages and prices suddenly, for no apparent reason, jumping up 2 million percent, and the central bank only answering to this increase by printing new money. It takes less than a second's reflection to see the absurdity in such an outragous claim.

I recommend you read Murray Rothbard's books "The Case Agaist the Fed" and "What Has Government Done to Our Money". They explain it all very well. Also, I recommend Ron Paul's "Pillars of Prosperity". You will find external links to these books in the article, and on the Mises Institute website www.mises.org, you'll find thousands of pages and several hours of audio lectures devoted to this subject, chiefly by Mises, Salerno, Rockwell and Reisman. However, many more have contributed. If you are interested in history, I recommend the works of Raico, Di Lorenzo and Woods, jr. Naturally, Rothbard and Mises have done great historical work as well, for instance "Americas Great Depression" and "The Panic of 1819" (Rothbard) and "Theory of History", (Mises). Ron Paul spoke about his quite often during the primaries. Obviously, if you really want to go back in time, you should read de Mariana's treatise "On the Alteration of Money", from early 17th century (that is the early 1600s). You see, inflation was a known concept and widely used practice over 400 years before the so called dispute between Keynesians and monetarists. In fact, there was no academic dispute of the meaning or origin of inflation, before the main stream economists decided to change the definition in the mid-twentieth century.

The reason for me not having pointed all of this out in the aritcle is because it can be viewed as too political. I am content with merely giving the Austrian take on things. The incredible bias shown by Wikipedia on this subject is nothing short of appalling. Considering that Keynesian economics have been proven almost as worthless and theoritically unsound as Marxism, it is incomprihensible to me that it has been given so much space. Marxists at least had the decency to take a background role in the scientific discourse after the disaster of the Soviet economic system. Keynesians on the other hand, seem completely unfazed by the spectacular failiure its policies led to, when employed by presidents Hoover and FDR following the Wall Street crash. New Deal was a complete disaster, the first real taste of American fascism, and based almost completely on Keynesian economic theory. However, Keynesianism remains popular with politicians, since it favours strong central planning and massive government spending. And as long as politicians are allowed to run the world and the economy, we'll never be rid of Keynes' curse.

I would be most happy to have a debate about economic theory with you, either here or via e-mail correspondence. I hereby throw down the gauntlet. It is up to you to decide whether or not you want to pick it up, and if you do, how you want to conduct the debate. However, I do ask you to be civil and stick to the subject matter, and not resort to ad hominem arguments and other unpleasant behaviour. Do you accept? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 16:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Misessus,

Wikipedia is not a debating forum. It is an encyclopedia of what is generally accepted - even if totally wrong and destructive to society as some things that appear on Wikipedia´s economics related articles are.

There are new developments in the understanding of inflation and economics. Since these developements are new they cannot be added to Wikipedia articles since they are not yet generally accepted.

Thank you for your clarification of the Austrian view. Inflation is invisible and untouchable. So is the value of money.

Undoing the Austrian view is relatively unimportant compared to undoing the centuries old very destructive global economic paradigm. The undoing of this paradigm appears in the inflation article. To get it generally accepted is another story.

The latter is a very difficult and much more challenging endeavour. Obviously I would rather spend my energy on that.

So, thank you for the invitation. I may take it up after I have finished the book I am working on at the moment. Debating with fundamentalists like you helps to define facts very precisely.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kjkkkjj,

I know Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, which is why I suggested e-mail correspondence. In my view, Wikipedian can and is a forum for people with interest in various sciences to meet and exchange ideas. The "Talk"-page of this very article is ample proof, as there have been much discussion going on prior to our joust.

I thoroughly disagree with your suggestion that Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia of what is generally accepted". If anything, an encyclopedia should give room and promote all scientific views on a subject, and not in any way confine itself to the view favoured by main stream media and politicians. Quite the reverse. Phenomena such as Wikipedia has a strong duty and an important role to play, when it comes to making less known theories familiar to the broad public. The main stream theories get coverage day and night on the news, in the papers and the public debate. They hardly need to monopolize a free, web based encyclopedia as well, don't you agree?

Inflation is far from invisible and untouchable. It can be measured very precisely and its effects can and have been closely documented, examined and presented. As for the value of money, few things are as noticeble and tangible to people as changes in their real income. The price of oil is a great modern day example of that. People notice every cent added to the gas price and the heating bill. Changes in the value of mony escapes no one, its just that there usually is very little the ordinary individual can do about it. Fiat currency is one of the chief reasons for that.

You are welcome to try to "undo" the Austrian view through academic dabate. I would be most interested to learn why someone would favour Keynesiansism or monetarism after all the chaos and turmoil they've brought about. As for the economic paradigm, no century have been as ridden with more economic disaster and subsequent human suffering than the 20th century, the century of Keynesianism and Marxism, of fascism and communism. This tragic and destructive trend has continued into the 21st century, and what does it have to show for itself, less than a decade into the new century? This is what:

Two massive American invasions and ockupations, the almost complete breakdown in Euro-American relations, continued civil war and ethnic cleansing in Africa, war between Russia and Georgia, the dot.com bubble which prompted one of the most expansive spouts of monetary policy in American history, now errupting in the credit crisis which is already spreading from America to Europe, the US national debt closing in on USD 10 trillion as a concsequense of ever new budget deficit records, civil liberties being suspended throughout the West (to name a few: the suspension of habeas corpus in the US, the Patriot Act and the acts associated with it, even Sweden has enacted a law giving the state unlimited authority to spy on its own citizens), not to mention the situation in Russia, China and the Third World.

I would just love to hear you or anyone explain what is so great about the Keynesian paradigm, that has been dominating world politics and economy since the early 20th century. However, I am not surprised you turned down my invitation, nor to find that it wouldn't have been much of a debate anyway. Going from Hitler and the Holocaust to fundamentalist may be an improvement, but far from good enough.

If you indeed are writing a book about "undoing the Austrian view" and the "centuries old very destructive global economic paradigm" you seem to connect to Austrian economics, I have some very happy news for you. The Austrian School has never in its 140 year long existance been the dominant view of world politics, economic or otherwise, because the Austrian view champions individual liberty and severly limited government. Politicians and special interest groups will obviously have none of that.

As for the centuries old paradigm, I assume you're referring to the so called free trade era during the 19th century. That era was preceeded by mercantilism and replaced by modern day protectionism at the end of the 19th century. You have already won general acceptance. So complete is your victory, in fact, that the Austrian School is virtually unknown despite the fact it is the oldest continual school of economic thought in the world. So put your writings aside and take the debate, your book is not needed. Among others, Paul Samuelson has done the job for you many times over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Austrian view censored on Wikipedia

I would ask whoever it is that keeps deleting the mentioning of the original definition of the word inflationt to back off. Inflation is -not- the "rise of the general level of prices". That is the new, main stream definition and is by no means correct, certainly not more correct than the original definition. If you want a balanced entry, you will stop deleting the mentioning of the original defintion. I'll keep posting it again and again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 00:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is all yours. Abuse it as you wish.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you're referring to me, but if so, I suggest you actually study the subject before assuming the role of expert editor. Inflation has an original definition, which is the one I've posted. The fact that main stream economists have opted to use another definition of the word, is regrettable. However, it does not make it the right and correct definition and therefore, Wikipedia should not present it as such. To be completely honest, I'm appalled at the incredible bias shown by the Wikipedia community on this entry, and I shall endeavour to correct this bias to the extent of my ability. Please note that I am merely adding to the existing text, not rewriting the entire entry. I think that the main stream view should be given space as well. However, I will not tolerate any undue, uneducated censoring of the Austrian view.

-Misessus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 00:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, now, little Hitler. We are now uneducated. I never understood before why economists in general have a negative view of economists of the Austrian school. You made their view very clear to me now. Are you going to put us in the gas chambers if you could catch us?

Kjkkkjj (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You are so "educated". I dare you to put your educated nonsense back in the article:

"Austrian economists differ from this view, maintaining that it is the central bank itself that is the root cause of inflation, because it is the institution which increases the money supply by creating new units of money out of thin air, unbacked by any commodity such as gold.".

You do not understand fiat money??!!!!! Now you want to tell us we are uneducated. If you cannot understand fiat money, which is one of the basic principles of the world economy, then you certainly should not edit any monetary articles on Wikipedia.

Tell me, for interest sake: Does no-one in the Austrian school understand fiat money? What a joke!! If that is true, then it is absolutely clear why the Austrian school has no credibility.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have censored your Austrian view

"that it is the central bank itself that is the root cause of inflation, because it is the institution which increases the money supply by creating new units of money out of thin air, unbacked by any commodity such as gold."

Kjkkkjj (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in a given economy over a period of time. This is always a shallow definition of inflation, because it never points at the causation, namely the corrupt fractional-reserve banking system, that embraces monetary inflation. The central banks increase the Dollars / Currency in circulation. This definition is but the consequence of their act of monetary manipulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.16.35 (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Idealogical reasons aside, the correct definition of "inflation" is directly related to the correct definition of "deflation". Inflation is defined as "an increase in the money supply, which often results in higher prices of goods and services." Deflation is defined as "a decrease in the money supply, which may result in lower prices of goods and services."

In 2008, the reason the Federal Reserve and U.S. Congress are injecting money into the economy (increasing the money supply) is that they fear the adverse effects of deflation more than the effects of inflation.Cadwallader (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Inflation is certainly not just an increase in the money supply. If the money supply increases at the exact rate required by the increase in new real value created, then there will be zero inflation.

The DEFINITION of inflation is: Inflation is the destruction of the value of monetary items as well as constant real value non-monetary items over time. Inflation has two components: a monetary component: cash inflation and a non-monetary component: Historical Cost Accounting inflation.

The CAUSE of cash inflation is always an excessive increase in the money supply. What causes an excessive increase in the money supply is a complex economic process.

Historical Cost Accounting inflation is caused by the combination of inflation and accountants´ implementation of the stable measuring unit assumption - an Historical Cost Accounting practice.

It also does not "often" results in higher prices of goods and services. Inflation, always being caused by an excessive increase in the money supply, always results in an increase in the general level of prices, which can be described as an effect of inflation.

The EFFECT of cash inflation: Cash inflation destroys the real value of monetary items at the rate of inflation over time.

The EFFECT of Historical Cost Accounting inflation: HCA inflation will result in the destruction by accountants of:

(a) the real value of all companies´ retained income, share premium, capital reserves and other [excluding (b)] constant real value non-monetary items never updated. This destruction is at the rate of inflation. Plus

(b) the destruction of the real value of the issued share capital of all companies with no well located and well maintained land and/or buildings or other variable real value non-monetary items able to be revalued at least equal to the original real value of each contribution of issued share capital. This destruction is at the rate of inflation. Plus

(c) the destruction of a further unknown amount (less than the inflation rate) in the real value of constant real value non-monetary items not fully updated, e.g., salaries, wages, rents, fees, royalties, retainers, income taxes, company taxes, value added taxes and all other constant items not fully updated.

To summarise: The EFFECT of Historical Cost Accounting inflation is the destruction of value in constant items never or not fully updated.

Deflation is an excessive decrease in the money supply, which always results in a decrease in the general level of prices.

Reference:[1]

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The "definition" as it appears in the article is not the definition, but the cause and effect of cash inflation only.

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

INCOMPRNSIBILE!

This article is ununderstandable!!! 19:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

haha rad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.38.119 (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's unpossible! 81.230.43.177 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This article has now become junk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.142.102 (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just reverted some of the 'junk' that accumulated in the introduction. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Argentina

Graphic is out of date, Argentina's inflation nowadays is between 5% and 10% (source: INDEC, national institute for statistics and census). If someone could change that, I would be very pleased.

Redirection

Why is a Wikipedia search for "economic stability" redirected to this page on "Inflation"? Does some Wikipedia administrator consider "inflation" synonomous with "economic stability"? Whether this assumption is correct or not, why is someone imposing their sovereign bias into the matter without any sort of discussion? While I have no means to alter this automated "redirection", I do strongly object to such arbitrary imposition of personal bias. While I could post a "tag" to publicize my objection, an invitation for quiet discussion seems more appropriate, for now. Does anyone care to contribute before I take further action? David Kendall (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, one aspect of economic stability - price stability - is synonymous with a low and predictable rate of inflation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.253.5 (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but it is only one aspect. Economic stability would generally imply few major fluctuations in the key measures of the state of an economy, arising from stable institutional settings, sound fiscal and monetary policy, and legal frameworks such as freedom from expropriation, low levels of corruption, transparent financial markets, etc. Price stability is generally regarded as the easiest to achieve, and safest to intervene in, but I do not believe that price stability on its own can proxy for stability in the unemployment, exchange rate, and GDP series, to take a few examples. It is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for economic stability, and not the same thing. Mark Borgschulte (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Inflation... definition

In the first paragraph, this article reads:

 "It should be noted that the result of inflation are higher prices."

Surely the causative relationship between inflation and higher prices flows in the reverse direction. i.e. higher prices cause inflation, rather than inflation causes higher prices? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.8.12 (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The introduction of this article is poorly written. It assumes that the term "inflation" refers to the increase in the money supply. The problem with this analysis is that it fails to recognize certain inflationary phenomena such as negative supply shocks. Inflation is defined as the increase in general price levels of goods. Monetary inflation should only be noted as one of the primary causes of inflation. A lot of the econ related articles on Wikipedia are becoming increasingly Austrian. Dotter (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Debating whether inflation is caused by rising prices (or vice versa) is like debating whether rain is caused by water falling from the sky (or vice versa). Inflation is defined as rising prices (by everyone except the Austrians). Inflation is caused by the supply of money expanding faster than the demand for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.253.5 (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this article does NOT ignore the Austrian/classical definition. That alternative definition is explained in Section 1, "Related definitions". But the definition stated in the first sentence of the article is the same one given in virtually any introductory macroeconomics textbook today.--Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Inflation

1. Economics. a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency (opposed to deflation).

Link:[2]

Inflated

a) unduly increased in level: inflated costs. b) Economics. unduly expanded in amount, value, or size.

Link: [3]

A clear indication that the word inflation has two meanings.

Logically the word inflation cannot be used twice in the same sentence meaning two different things in an article about the one meaning of the word - as it appears in the second sentence of this article.

Commodities inflation is simply an increase in the price of commodities - simply a price increase of one group of products as a result of demand being greater than supply only for that group of products. There is no resulting loss of value in the currency.

Core inflation of all goods and services, excluding one or two, on the other hand, results in the loss of value in the currency.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Inflation and exchange rates

China underwent record inflation last year at 4.8% per year.[4] The United States inflation rate has been running around 2.6% in 2007.[5]. Meanwhile, the U.S. dollar lost roughly 7% of its value relative to the yuan in 2007.[6] Can someone explain that little paradox? 70.15.114.2 (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

4.8% inflation in China is about 1/5th of the "record" over 20 years! DOR (HK) (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer is Balassa-Samuelson effect. I think we should somehow mention this effect in the article. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks for the explanation, but clue me in whether I'm interpreting it correctly. You're suggesting that the Chinese inflation rate represents a rapidly increasing price of some non-tradeable commodity over there - land, cheeseburgers, something. But the U.S. inflation rate coupled with free trade with the yuan means that Chinese tradeable goods have actually gotten 7%-2.6% = 4.4% cheaper - or more likely, the Chinese tradeable goods stayed the same price but the cost of land and rent-based commodities in the U.S. went down to compensate for overall increasing commodity prices. Obviously this suggests some ideas that need to be researched... some with rather ugly implications for the U.S. 70.15.114.2 (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It is more like this - in the long term (sometimes very long) and very approximately Chinese inflation = US inflation - yuan appreciation + additional Chinese inflation in non-tradable sector. Prices of Chinese tradable goods in dollar terms have increased by approx. 2,6%, in yuans they decreased by 7 - 2.6 = 4.4% (which might be a problem for Chinese exporters), and prices of Chinese non-tradable goods have increased by let's say fifteen percent (so Chinese inflation rate 4.8 is weighted average of +15% and -4.4%). So there are no ugly implications for the US. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, as Balassa-Samuelson suggests, The Economist recently reported very high wage inflation in China, which would be consistent with high inflation in Chinese nontradeables. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should mention the flip side: exports from China holding down inflation in the importing countries. For example,

“Poor families in America spend a larger share of their income on goods whose prices are directly affected by trade – such as clothing and food – than wealthier families. . . . This trend [imports helping to control inflation] can partly be explained by China. Prices of consumer goods in US stores have fallen most heavily in sectors where the Chinese presence has increased most. In canned seafood or cotton shirts, for example, where China’s exports to the rest of the world have increased dramatically this decade, inflation has been negative. In sectors where there is no Chinese presence, inflation has been more than 20 per cent. Moreover, as China produces goods of relatively low quality, sectors that have a strong Chinese presence are disproportionately consumed by the poor.”

Broda, Christian, "China and Wal-Mart: the true champions of equality," Financial Times June 4, 2008, p. 11. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a too much inflation in the United States, how is this going to stop in these difficult times? I have seen way too much inflation from 2007 to 2008 in my whole life time. What happens when gas prices go down? Prices don't go down they stay were companies have raised and raised their prices too much, that is something we have to live with. It is too bad OPEC and the US has made this a future problem that effects everybody.--69.239.171.174 (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Capital Goods Price Index

A simple Google of the term came up under New Zealand Government Statistics. So I don't know if saying that "although so far no attempt at building such an index has been tried" is true or not. Leigao84 (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It might have never been done in the US, but they do attempt to track it else where. Leigao84 (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Auto-archiving

I have established an auto-archiver here (being bold and all), set to archive older than 130days. This can be adjusted if needed.--Gregalton (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

non-core inflation

I came to wikipedia looking for detailed information on non-core inflation. However, I only found a sentence talking about core inflation; which is inflation number excluding food and oil. I was hoping to figure out how to find US non-core inflation number, because that seems to be the "real" inflation number. Can anyone add that information in? Better yet, can anyone write out how to find the non-core CPI from Consumer Price Indexes of Bureau of Labor Statistics? I know CPI of BLS doesn't list that non-core inflation number straight out, so what calculation do I have to do to find the number? If that is too detailed, can someone make a new topic "Non-core Inflation" and explain it?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.250.111.7 (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for being uncivil.

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.63.46.99 (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 

Try the BLS web-site which provides CPI both core and total; they provide break-outs of the components that are excluded from core inflation separately (energy and food primarily). Essentially, inflation of the elements excluded are what you mean by non-core.--Gregalton (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

See also core inflation.--Gregalton (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

does not compute

Can someone explain inflation in this article in terms that real people can relate to? The typical academic treatment, as in the current version of the article, citing the standard macroeconomics texts, does not work. Saying that economists A, B, and C believe inflation is caused by abstract concepts X, Y, and Z doesn't cut it. Rather, it has the be explained in terms that people are familiar with for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Non-academic, non-abstract. Rtdrury (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for being uncivil.Nicolaas Smith (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Come on man, links again: where did I call it vandalism? - RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for being uncivil.Nicolaas Smith (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)the sockpuppet

• A large section here was a fork of the article itself and has been removed. The text can now be found at User:Nicolaas Smith/sandbox. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for being uncivil.Nicolaas Smith (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't find a reliable source(s) that says all of this?? - in a nonWP:SYNTHESIS way? Or finness current language of article just a tad to make it more understandable for people who haven't taken 5-6 college econ classes and read a lot on monetary theory. While still remaining true to sources. However, this is non economics 101. I've only read 1st half but it was better than expected. Haven't gotten far enough to see if it includes opinions that private banks in a free market more trustworthy than special interest controlled govt banks in creating enough money to facilitate trade without creating inflation (or money-based deflation) - assuming honest and competent people - and not crooks and fools - control most private banks. ;-) Carol Moore 15:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I apologise for being uncivil.Nicolaas Smith (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton here. I will not refer to your past sockpuppetry as long as you log in when making contributions and use the same login consistently. I will do so if you contribute under other names or not logged in. I am also asking you to please stop referring to me directly in your edits or edit summaries unless there is a specific reason to do so.--Gregalton (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for being uncivil.Nicolaas Smith (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a simple request to cease and desist. You can choose whether or not you wish to agree to a polite request.--Gregalton (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for being uncivil.Nicolaas Smith (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am asking you politely to stop. If you wish to continue, that is of course up to you. I have stated clearly the reasons I've referred to your past sockpuppetry, and under what circumstances I will and will not do so.--Gregalton (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nicolaas_Smith"

I apologise for being uncivil.Nicolaas Smith (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Nicolaas Smith (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The way to contact administrators if you wish to complain about my behaviour is at administrators' noticeboard of incidents. However, what you have said above makes no sense - I have not attempted to ban you. I have said that when you make contributions under different names or not logged in, I may choose to note that you have used sockpuppets in the past for various reasons. Please do go ahead and file a complaint or notice if you wish. More information about how to contribute to wikipedia is at wp:help.

Please also stop comparing me to Robert Mugabe. Personal attacks are considered unacceptable behaviour.--Gregalton (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

:I apologise for being uncivil.Nicolaas Smith (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.103.77.114 (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

plain english

Nicolaas, thanks for pointing me to your plain english discussion on inflation. I haven't absorbed all of it yet but it certainly is similar to what I had in mind and certainly helps. I think there should be a place for "plain english" in an encyclopedia article on inflation though I can't say how, but maybe in its own section, near or at the top. Of course there has to be a concensus of some sort but those advocating the more conventional academic format might want to consider that it typically goes over the head of a great majority of people. Your plain english discussion probably needs to be "objectified" to avoid offending people with "lazy" labels and such. Thanks again. Rtdrury (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for being uncivil. Nicolaas Smith (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have been off-line when you posted this. As for most of the points above, I stick to what I've said before and ask for some politeness. I have not raised your sockpuppetry here again: you have. I would also appreciate if comparisons of me to dictators and their cronies stopped. And please stop referring to me repeatedly when I have not been involved in discussions directly.

As for your COS, the situation has evidently changed now that your work has actually been published - congratulations. I did not refer to this before because it had not actually been published. It would also be helpful if you read other parts of the instructions for using WP as I have suggested before. And please stop using inflammatory words like "reprehensible."--Gregalton (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Recognize that even if you've been published in the most WP:RS, editors still might have a problem with putting any of or more than a couple sentences of your material in the article, for any number of reasons. So it would be helpful to observe WP:CIV in those cases. Carol Moore 16:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Thank you Carol. Fortunately your well phrased sentence leaves no space for observing anything.

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for being uncivil.Nicolaas Smith (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Measures of inflation

RPI is not an old name for CPI in the UK. They are still used as seperate methods to find inflation. However, I don't know enough about either one to edit it myself. I also am quite new and don't know how to edit it fully either. Plukerpluck (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pluckerpluck: Add what you want to say about RPI and CPI and add a link to a reference in a book or article or on the internet - it must be a reputable source. You just click on edit in that section and add your contribution with the reference. That´s it. If you have a good reference no-one can just take it off.

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Inflation or inflation rate

The common economic definition of inflation is a change in price over time (as given here). This means that "inflation rate" is the change of inflation over time. It is one thing for politicians to use loose terminology like this, but an encyclopedia should be more careful with it's terminology. I propose that everywhere that "inflation rate" appears, it should simply read "inflation" Timdownie (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Inflation has two components

Inflation is the destruction of value in monetary and constant items over time. Inflation has two components: a monetary component: cash inflation and a non-monetary component: Historical Cost Accounting inflation.

For the latest up-to-date facts about inflation visit [7]

See also this peer reviewed article in South Africa´s leading accountancy journal: [8]

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Need to Discuss the Political Motivations Involved

Inflation/Deflation, as the article states, was defined in classical economics as changes in the money supply.

The human population growth rate is about 2%, as is the average increase in the amount of gold/silver from mining. It might be more accurate to say that inflation is an increase in the money supply that exceeds the rate of population growth. As the "economy" is the aggregate of goods, services and labor, the economy (goods and services) can only grow if the population is growing.

Since the United States and other Western nations have laws that pay entitlements to a large percentage of their population that are adjusted by a price index, there is a direct incentive for governments to re-define the price indices and under-report inflation in order to minimize the amount of money they pay out in entitlements. For example, the U.S. government changed the Consumer Price Index in the past decade to minimize the weight of energy and food - which are usually the first sectors to show the effects of inflationary monetary policy.

In a growing economy with a stable money supply, the price of goods and services should be falling slightly because the amount of goods and services relative to the total money supply is increasing. For example, the prices of consumer electronics and computers have fallen steadily for the past twenty years, but no economist has argued that we are in a "deflation". Therefore, it is putting the cart before the horse to define "inflation" as "price increase" and deflation as "price decrease". Rather it is the money supply that these terms describe, and price changes are the effect of inflation or deflation.

The politicization of the Consumer Price Index and other national indices deserves some treatment in this article.Cadwallader (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition of inflation

It is very clear that the definition of inflation is not: Inflation is a rise in the general level of prices over time. That is an effect of monetary inflation. If that is the definition, then what are the effects of inflation? What are the effects of a rise in the general level of prices?

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the increase of the money supply is a much better definition, if for no other reason then the following. Defining inflation as an increase in price reflexively defines increase in price as inflation. This is not true, prices increase for many reasons that have nothing to do with inflation (the money supply.) The way the article currently defines inflation is wrong and adds confusion to an already much misunderstood topic. I support changing it.Byates5637 (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I support changing it too. Milton Friedman´s statement that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon is never disputed. Inflation has to do with money. A definition of inflation in terms of money seems logical.

I suggest: Inflation is the destruction of value in money.

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I forgot that I need a reliable third party reference :)

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some further facts about inflation:

Inflation is always and everywhere the destruction of value in money. This destruction is transferred to constant real value non-monetary items never or not fully updated by the application of the stable measuring unit assumption under the Historical Cost Accounting model since money is the universal unit of account. Monetary inflation is an economic process resulting in the destruction of the real value of monetary items over time leading to an increase in the general level of prices. Historical Cost Accounting inflation is the Historical Cost Accounting practice of never or not fully updating constant real value non-monetary items resulting in their destruction at the rate of inflation when they are never updated or at a lower rate when they are only partly updated over time.

Reference to a peer reviewed article in a reliable third party publication: [9]I am citing myself in terms of Wikipedia policy.

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, the common definition is a rise in the general price level. Please see [10]. "Inflation is an increase in the price of a basket of goods and services that is representative of the economy as a whole." There is a separate article on monetary inflation.

Yes, the definition of inflation is a definition of the effect (or the measurement of the effect), and is distinct from the causes of inflation. The increase in the money supply is the cause (some may say one of the causes). The basic money equation includes velocity, which is distinct from the supply of money, so to say monetary inflation is the same as inflation is wrong (unless one assumes velocity never changes).--Gregalton (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it is what Monetarists assume:

"As Monetarists assume that V and T are fixed, there is a direct relationship between the growth of the money supply and inflation." See monetary inflation - Paragraph 4.

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is sometimes assumed, by monetarists and others. Sometimes that is a reasonable assumption for ease of calculation or analysis (i.e. a shortcut), and also because velocity cannot be directly observed. But that does not make it a correct assumption or change the definitional issue. Cause and effect remain distinct.--Gregalton (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

---

This article needs more balance, particularly in response to the Monetarists' attempts to define inflation in Monetarist terms. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Market Basket

The article links to Market Basket. The article in question is entirely inappropriate. I suggest the construction of a proper article on the economical type of basket, and if need be that a disambiguation is made. Say, Market Basket (economics) and Market Basket (company). Scaller (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitions from prominent textbooks

There has been a lot of debate here regarding the correct definition of 'inflation'. The consensus which has usually prevailed here is that 'inflation' means a rise in the price level. This is the standard definition among economists today, as the following citations show. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Glossary of Blanchard (2000), Macroeconomics, 2nd ed.:

Inflation: A sustained rise in the general level of prices.

Inflation rate: the rate at which the price level increases over time.

Glossary of Abel & Bernanke (1995), Macroeconomics, 2nd ed.:

Inflation: A situation in which the prices of most goods and services are rising over time.

Hall & Taylor (1986), Macroeconomics: Theory, Performance, and Policy, page 5:

The rate of inflation is the percentage change in the price level from one year to the next.

Glossary of Barro (1993), Macroeconomics, 4th ed.:

Inflation: A sustained increase in the general price level over time.

Inflation rate: The percentage change in a price index between two periods of time.

Gordon (1988), Macroeconomics: Theory and Policy, 2nd ed., p. 389:

...inflation means a considerable and persistent rise in the general level of prices over a long period of time.

On the other hand, early classical economists used 'inflation' to mean an increase in the money supply, which they identified as the main cause of increases in the general price level. (Gordon, 1988, p. 389 discusses earlier definitions of inflation.) Austrian economists still use the term with this meaning. But since this is not the mainstream usage today, this meaning of the word is mentioned in the section Inflation#Related definitions instead of in the introduction. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it not true that prominent textbooks will also show that the reason the general price level rises is because the value of money is being eroded by inflation? Is it not generally accepted that as the value of money is being eroded by inflation, the general price level of neccessity has to rise? Is it not true and generally accepted that this is easily proven mathematically?

Is it thus not generally accepted that inflation always erodes the value of money and is it not a good idea to mention in the opening paragraph something about the fact that inflation always erodes the value of money?

Or is this so obvious and so generally accepted that it is not neccessary to state this?

Kjkkkjj (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Causes and effects of inflation are discussed in the sections entitled 'Causes of inflation' and 'Effects of inflation'. All I'm trying to do is clarify the definition of inflation, which is what Wiki policy suggests should appear in the first sentence. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

supply and demand

The top disambiguation lines of an article are in case someone came to this article when they really meant to go somewhere else. I don't think anyone would accidentally type "inflation" when they were looking for "supply and demand".

If there needs to be a distinction made between different kinds of price raises, beyond what's already in the article, then that should be in the text of the article. (I don't think this is needed, but that's a different issue.) Cretog8 (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Food "inflation" (simply a price increase caused by demand being greater than supply for one category of product) and fuel "inflation" (simply a price increase caused by demand being greater than supply for one single product) are not the same as inflation (a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services over time.)

See this Bloomberg article for "food inflation" being the increase in food prices and not inflation being an increase in the general price level.

[11]

"The Irish central bank said today that while food inflation may have peaked, it's ``not inevitable that oil prices will increase inexorably upwards."

In this article the word "inflation" is used 9 times meaning an increase in the general price level and once meaning simply the food price increase caused by demand being greater than supply. This is the case in almost all articles about inflation (an increase in the general price level) where inflation (simply an increase in price caused by demand being greater than supply) is used together with "inflation" being a rise in the general price levell with no indication that two different things are being stated. This is very ambiguous. Disambiguation would help under logical circumstances. Since it is generally accepted that the two meanings are willy nilliy mixed all the time by everyone causing great misunderstanding, I agree that that there should be no top disambiguation. The justification being that the confusing mix-up is completely generally accepted and Wikipedia is about what is generally accepted and not about facts as stated in Wikipedia policy. So I agree with you, in terms of Wikipedia policy, that you should exclude it.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This article has left me horribly confused about inflation, when I thought I knew what it was. O well. In any case, all I'm saying is that what you're talking about isn't a disambiguation thing, but something to be clarified in the article. Cretog8 (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What you're talking about is a conceptual issue which needs to be explained, simply redirecting someone to supply and demand isn't likely to help. Cretog8 (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The mistaken concept is generally accepted, so there is no need to explain the correct facts - not in Wikipedia. Wikipedia clearly states that it is not about facts, but about what is generally accepted.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if we tried, we would not be able to explain the conceptual issue you are talking about. We will be able to find references that show that "inflation" is used meaning a rise in the general price level. We will also find references that show that "inflation" is used meaning simply a price increase caused by demand being greater than supply. All of that will be allowed in Wikipedia. But, we will not find a reference that states that the same word is being used worldwide in the same articles with two very different meanings causing great confusion which is generally accepted. There will be numerous Wikipedia editors that will delete any comment like that as original research. So, sorry. There is nothing we can do about it on Wikipedia. Someone will have to publish it outside Wikipedia and it will have to be generally accepted before we can state it here on Wikipedia.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe an article can be started for Price Increases. In this article referenced statements can be made about what a price increase is. Referenced statements can also be included to what inflation is with a link to this article(Inflation). The article (Price Increases) can be left like that. The article can not contain any statements that the word inflation is being abused worldwide as I described above. It can perhaps be explained in detail in the discussion page of that article(Price Increases), but not in the article itself. Maybe then you will agree to have a top disambiguation link to Price Increases to this new page. But, this may be deleted by Wikipedia editors as not being in the spirit of Wikipedia. So, I think we will just have to leave the matter here. We are hamstrung by the fact that Wikipedia is not about facts but about what is generally accepted.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link leading to another true but ambiguous statement

The disambiguation link "For other uses, see Inflate." leads to [12]

In this article titled "Inflation" it states that "Inflation is a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services over time." and in the above Disambiguation link it states: "Inflate can refer to:

Inflation, the increase in prices of goods over a period of time."

Can or should the Disambiguation page be changed or does the defintion of inflation on the Disambiguation page correctly refer to a price increase - which it does? Logically it should be left like that: as the definition of a price increase and not inflation being a rise in the general price level. This correctly demonstrates that inflation has these two meanings. It should thus be left as it is. To state that it is confusing in an article is obviously original research and not allowed in any article. The confusion is generally accepted and allowable in articles. Stating that it is confusing is original research and not allowable since there is no reliable third party reference stating that it is done worldwide and very confusing.

The generally accepted confusion is very well demonstrated by the fact that the Disambiguation link "inflate" on the "Inflation" article (inflation is an increase in the general price level) leads to the Disambiguation page with the link for "inflation, the increase in prices of goods over a period of time" leads back to the article "inflation".

Kjkkkjj (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have this all wrong: The definition of inflation on the Disambiguation page should be corrected to inflation meaning an increase in the general price level.

Inflation being used to mean a price increase is not defined as such on Wikipedia. The fact that it is used with two meanings in the same article worldwide and very confusing is original research and has no place on Wikipedia. Kjkkkjj (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the easiest solution for Wikipedia is to label the concept of inflation as a price increase as original research. That will serve and support/maintain the generally accepted state of confusion very well. We always have to remember that Wikipedia is about what is generally accepted and not about facts - as per Wikipedia policy. Kjkkkjj (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

CPI as measure of inflation

Wikipedia is about what is generally accepted. CPI is generally accepted as a measure of inflation. You ask anyone what was the inflation rate in Russia or the USA or China or Burundi in 1958 and they will give you the CPI rate. That is what is meant by generally accepted. Yes, there are other widely accepted temporary fashionable measures of inflation, like core inflation etc. CPI is generally accepted. That is the difference.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Core inflation is the preferred measure of inflation by the Federal Reserve (it's the measure the Fed actually attempts to stabilize, because it is a better indicator of the effects of monetary policy than the CPI is). And other measures of inflation are used in other contexts: the GDP deflator is the one that is needed to compare real GDP between one year and another. And firms are likely to find the Producer Price Index more important than the CPI, because the Producer Price Index helps measure firms' costs. So these are all generally accepted measures of inflation. They are not temporarily fashionable: they are standard economic concepts which are all used to measure different kinds of inflation for different purposes. Some of them are less familiar to the 'guy on the street', but they are all familiar and standard and generally accepted by economists. 'Generally accepted' does not mean what is most familiar to those who are least knowledgeable. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You may be American. Wikipedia is global. One of the current Fed regional chiefs favours CPI instead of core inflation. I think you will agree that 90% of all written material about inflation is about CPI. That is not really important to me. I use CPI. The rest is just a debating point.

Inflation is about the decline of the value of money. PPI does not lead directly to the decline of the value of money. I do not think PPI is an inflation indicator. Inflation has got to lead to the decline in the value of money. Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. PPI is a standard economic concept. It is not a measure of inflation. There are not different kinds of inflation. There is only one inflation: inflation is a rise in the general price level of goods and services over time. Nothing else.

It is more important to stop the tendency to call each and every price increase inflation. House price inflation, food inflation, fuel inflation and commodity inflation, for example, are all in fact increases in the price levels of these particular items and may or may not have something to do with the increase in the general price level of all consumer goods and services.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Inflation = leads to a decline in the value of money is not the same as inflation = price increase

In the following contribution:

"While 'inflation' usually refers to a rise in some broad price index like the consumer price index that indicates the overall level of prices, it sometimes refers to a rise in the prices of some specific set of goods or services, as in "commodities inflation" or "core inflation".":

Commodities inflation is an increase in the price of only commodities. It has nothing to do with inflation meaning a rise in the general price level which leads to a decline in the value of money.

On the other hand, core inflation is a rise in the general price level excluding one or two products and leads to a decline in the value of money.

How is it possible to use the two concepts as equal examples of inflation meaning simply a price increase? It is an obvious mistake.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Two perfectly standard, generally accepted uses of the word 'inflation' in economic contexts are: (1) a rise in overall prices and (2) a rise in some specific subset of prices. I supplied references for (1). There is also a reference for (2), using 'house price inflation', which I think you supplied, though maybe it was me, I don't remember. There is nothing wrong with mentioning both these standard, generally accepted meanings in this article(I'm assuming the disambiguation page is primarily for linking to noneconomic uses of 'inflation', such as Cosmic inflation and inflatables).

You are right that a rise in overall prices causes a decline in the value of money (more money is needed to buy the same basket of goods). A rise in some subset of prices need not necessarily lead to a decline in the value of money (though a rise in a few prices will in fact raise the overall price index by a small amount, unless there are some offsetting declines). So when we mention in the article that inflation causes a decline in the value of money, we are clearly talking about definition (1). There is nothing wrong with that. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Logic is not a person´s editorial opinion

It is logical that it is confusing to use the word inflation meaning two completely different things side by side and intermixed in the same report about a subject, namely, inflation meaning only an increase in the general price level that leads to a decline in the value of money. Kjkkkjj (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See : INCOMPRNSIBILE! This article is ununderstandable!!! 19:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

haha rad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.38.119 (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's unpossible! 81.230.43.177 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Kjkkkjj (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You have all the right in the world and I am sure you can even find reputable references for it, to keep this article INCOMPRNSIBILE and ununderstandable.

I would have sincerely liked to make inflation more understandable to Wikipedia users. Kjkkkjj (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Calculating monthly inflation rates

Zimbabwe now, Russia and Brazil before used monthly inflation figures. I would be interested in a little explanation on how these are calculated, in order to find the relationship between annual and monthly rates.--Peterk2 (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It is the same as monthly compound interest.

Inflation is calculated on past consumer behaviour. Then it is projected forward on the all else being equal assumption.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion comes first!

Gregalston, you do not delete someone else's text before consulting with the author first! You claimed that it "Too much detail on Austrian view for lead)". It was one bloody sentence, which read "In contrast to these two camps, the Austrian School maintains that inflation is a distinct action taken by the state, meaning the increase of the supply of monetary units (inflating the money supply)". This belongs in the lead. Do not force your own personal opinions onto the Wikipedia community and this article.

Furthermore, the reference [8] covers the entire original definition, meaning the both the two first sentences.

As for your other contributions in the "Original definition" paragraph, they were quite good.

But again, if you have a problem with what has been published in the article, you take it up here first. You simply cannot go around deleting other peoples' texts. I can't believe I actually have to point this out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 10:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I think if you were to read your statement above and replace the relevant points with "insert your claims throughout existing articles without consulting with others" you may note that this is not in fact how wikipedia works. You do not wp:own this article, and nor do I.

Sometimes people add things, sometimes people delete things for various reasons. In this case, I contend that what the Austrian school maintains regarding inflation is not central to the definition of inflation (per mainstream economics, as is clearly indicated), and the Austrian position is (at any rate) covered in the rest of the article with the due amount of attention for a non-mainstream view.--Gregalton (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Misessus, don´t mess with Gregalton. He owns this article and many others. Kjkkkjj (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A bit of Austrianism

Dear Gregalton,

one of the first books written on the subject is Juan de Marianas book "On the Alteration (Debasement) of Money", written in the early 17th century. It is mentioned in Shostak’s article and I’ve listed it as “Further Reading”.

Inflation by means of debasing the currency is an age old means employed by the state, used to fund its own activities. Historically, these activities have mainly been warfare and imperialism. History is littered with examples of this. One notable example is the Continental Dollar, a completely fiat based paper currency printed by the American Colonies in order to fund their war of independence. It was declared that anyone who did not accept the CD as money, would be declared enemy of the nation. During the 20th century, both the WWI and WWII were largely funded by the central banks of the belligerent countries.

For more on this, you can read Lew Rockwells article "War and Inflation", which I've used as a reference. Thomas Di Lorenzo, Thomas Woods, jr, Robert Higgs and Ralph Raico have also done much historical work on this subject. Obviously, Jesus Huerta de Soto's treatise "Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles" is an indispensible book for anyone interested in inflation and the history of money. I've used this book as a reference as well.

The original definition of the word inflation has always been exactly that, meaning that the state purposefully increases the money supply as a means to fund various activities. The only reason there is a dispute over this over the meaning of inflation, competition and other key terms and phenomena in the economic science, is that the mainstreamers wanted to make economics more "scientific". This started in the 1920:s and went on through the 1930:s and 1940:s. To make it more scientific, they started to redefine key terms and introduced various methods of mathematical models. In short, they started to apply the methodology of the natural sciences on economics, which to me is completely incomprehensible, as economics is a social science. In a nutshell, the mainstreamers had physics envy. However, this envy is groundless, as there are axioms and economic laws that are as unyielding and uncompromising as any natural law. Sadly enough, the Austrian School seem to be the only school realizing this.

If the money supply is held constant, but the production of goods and services increase, this leads to the increase in the value of money, meaning the same amount of money will buy more goods and services. The money supply doesn’t increase by itself, it increases only as a consequence of inflation, meaning the printing of more units of money and expansion of created credit in a fractional reserve banking system. Under a 100 % gold standard combined with a full reserve banking system, inflation as we know it today would not exist.

As for it being “well-understood and well-known that inflation (as measured) is not driven just by the amount of money, but also by velocity”, that is only true according to the redefined usage of inflation. The Austrians reject this new definition, as it is a distortion of a several hundreds year old, well known and documented, deliberate action taken by the state.

As for the article itself. I would really much appreciate if you could explain to me what harm there is in giving the readers the ‘’’full story’’’ of a dispute, started by the mainstreamers themselves. The mainstream view is amply displayed, but I would have hoped and thought that any Wikipedian would be grateful to those who endeavor to give brief descriptions of another view, in this case the oldest continual school of economics, substantiated with a multitude of externally linked references. Am I mistaken in assuming this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 11:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you provide the specific source that states that the original definition of inflation was the increase in the money supply?

Your argument about velocity is circular - if inflation is only the increase in the supply of money, then of course other concepts are irrelevant. This is why I specified inflation as measured. So, if you'll let me call inflation as measured "inflation-main" (taking no view on which is correct), what does Austrian school say about how velocity affects inflation-main?

And I have no issue that the Austrian and other non-mainstream views can and should be represented. My only point is how much. Encyclopedias favour mainstream views. The mainstream definition is that inflation is a measure of the general increase in prices. To wit, the article emphasises that definition. There is in the very first para a note that other definitions exist.

After that, there is simply no need to put great emphasis on the Austrian school, save in the articles about it, as it is not a mainstream school of thought.--Gregalton (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton,

I recommend that you read Shostak’s article. It gives a brief history of inflation. You will find more detailed descriptions in many of the other books and articles I’ve referred to, for example de Mariana’s book and de Soto’s treatise. Rothbard, being an economic historian, deals with this as well. It’s all there, you just have to actually read it.

My argument of velocity is very forthright. In fact, how can you be any more to the point than to point out exactly what actually inflation is? The method of increasing the money supply have changed with the arrival of new techonology, the fractional reserve system and the final victory of fiat money over commodity backed money, but the basic principle and action remain the same, as do the effects.

As for the cause, if you follow the original definition of the word, you will find that cause of inflation is the state’s need of funds, as in more money to spend. It can borrow, it can tax and it can inflate. Of these three alternatives, inflation is obviously the most appealing. Borrowing is expensive and taxation is unpopular. Inflation, however, gives you lots of cash quickly and the effects of it doesn’t kick in for years. And once it does, you can blame it all on something else, usually the private sector and private citizens. The Continental Dollar was a great example of this, as anyone who did not accept the worthless peace of paper as money was declared enemy of the nation. There are stories of debtors who, after the CD was introduced, actually hunt their own creditors down, throwing paper money at them. The creditors, in turn, did what they could to avoid getting paid with the CD. Thomas E. Woods has a podcast lecture on mises.org in which he speaks of this.

The mainstreamers have been instrumental to the state in this matter. Thanks to the distorted definition of inflation, the state has effectively been given carte blanche to print as much money as it wants. This has created the finacial-industrial complex, as the banks benefit greatly from the continual stream new credit and the fractional reserve system. They can lend out billions and billions of created credit, and rake in endless amounts of real money in interest revenue. Again, the huge investment banks in the US is a great example of this very thing.

As for the state, it can fund whatever warfare or welfare programs it wants, buying votes left and right. When the depression hits, the politicians blame it all on the private sector, and gets roaring support from mainstream economists. What happened after the Wall Street crash is a great example of that, and we are seeing the very same thing now. So, is it any wonder that the politicians favour mainstream economics over Austrian economics? Is it any wonder the state prefers fiat currency over commodity backed currency?

I really don’t understand your position on this encyclopedia business. If someone is willing to devote his own time to adding, note ’’’adding’’’, the Austrian School to this article, why would anyone object to that? Especially since the mainstream view is quite obviously a disputed one and has no scientific ground. Be grateful instead, that someone makes the article you’ve worked on for so long more balanced and significantly raises its scientific level. Why on Earth would anyone endevour to purposefully keep an encyclopedia as unscientific as possible? That is completely beyond me.

Could you please provide the specific source (preferably page number and something accessible online) that says that this was the original meaning of inflation?

I don't find the rest of your comments to the point, despite the verbiage. If you accept that there are two definitions of inflation (even if you think one is "distorted"), you should be able to answer a direct question on it. Inflation-A (growth in money supply) does not lead directly to Inflation-M (growth in prices as measured) - neither directly in terms of time nor directly in terms of quantities. Different types of money also have demonstrably different quantitative effects. As far as I can tell, the Austrian definition seems to ignore this important point - one part of the answer to which is velocity of money - in favour of a simplistic definition of inflation (which can then be used in circular argumentation).

Whatever weaknesses mainstream economics may have, at least it's willing to accept that inflation as measured and increase in the money supply are not straightforward relationships, and it tries to figure out why that is the case. Rather than just repeating that inflation is incorrectly defined. (Okay, maybe so, but try to answer the question)--Gregalton (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton

Like I pointed out, inflation is a very appealing way of funding state activity, because it creates funds quickly and the effects of it don’t show for several years. As a great case in point, the credit crisis in the US of today originates from the massive inflation and subsequent credit expansion around 2000, when Greenspan “saved” the US economy. The price of goods and services (including money) depend on a multitude of factors, inflation being but one of them, though a very important one. No Austrian has ever claimed that a 10 percent increase in the money supply automatically leads to a 10 percent increase in the general level of prices or a 9 percent decrease in the value per unit.

Austrians say that inflation is the result of inflating the money supply, which in turn erodes the purchase power of the inflated currency, thus leading to a nominal rise in prices. Mainstreamers say that the rise in itself is inflation, and that rising prices cause the erosion of the value of money. In other words, main streamers got it backwards.

Another case in point is Zimbabwe. No one can claim that it is the price level that has increased with several million percent, and that the central bank subsequently has been forced to print new money. However, this is exactly what the mainstreamers claim, if you follow the logic of their argument. Hyperinflation, wherever it occurs, is the ultimate empiric evidence that the Austrian definition, the original definition, is the correct one. I can understand that mainstreamers will deny all ‘’theoretical’’ proof that their argument is severely flawed, but how they can deny this empirical evidence still escapes me. After all, it was the mainstreamers themselves who introduced empirical methodology in economics.

If you actually would read any of the material I’ve linked to in the article, you’d find out that the origin and nature of money probably is the field that has been most examined and studied by Austrian economists. Furthermore, you have still to point out exactly how the Austrian argument is circular. Thus far, you have failed completely, which in part is due to the fact that not only do you read the material, you don’t even read what I write in our discussion. As for answering questions, maybe you could try to answer one of the several questions I’ve asked you?

- Misessus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 10:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you have the position of so-called "mainstreamers" wrong. That position is that inflation - the rise in the general price level - is the effect, not the cause. One substantial part of the cause is increases in the money supply. They don't "have it backwards" - they're just using the word to mean a different thing. In fact, you state above "inflation is the result of inflating the money supply". In other words, the cause and the effect are distinct, and you have used inflation in exactly the sense of mainstream economics to support your point.

Mainstream economics does agree that inflating (expanding) the money supply is one of the causes (and there are debates about how important the other factors are, but velocity is pretty much by definition one of the potential contributors). Because the link between the effect and the causes is not direct, it is analytically useful to distinguish, as the causes and effects can be measured separately. Since that is the case, please do tell what Austrians call the rise in the general price level - I'm assuming from your sentence above that they *also* use it in this sense. (Do they really not distinguish between cause and effect?)

Really, your point is like saying that stepping on the accelerator in a car IS acceleration (or speed if you prefer). The transmission mechanism and conditions mean that stepping on the accelerator have different acceleration or speed effects, and distinguishing between the interplay is useful.

And please stop asking me to read all of these works - I'm asking for a specific reference for a specific contention; surely you can find a page number. I find David Hume distinguishing quite handily between an increase in the money supply and the general price level, so the distinction is quite old, but I do not see the specific reference to the so-called Austrian definition as being the original or correct one.--Gregalton (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

One additional point: you say "Mainstreamers say that the rise in itself is inflation, and that rising prices cause the erosion of the value of money. " This is not what they say - they don't say that a rise in the general price level causes the erosion of the value of money, it is the erosion of the value of money.--Gregalton (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

For a source (including page), see the following summary of Ricardo and the Bullionists dispute: "this was the cause of inflation or, to use the language of the day, the cause of the depreciation of bank notes. Pg. 129.--Gregalton (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we are missing the point by arguing about which theories are right and wrong here. It is not for Wikipedia to pronounce on this and it is obvious that there will never be any agreement. Lets not worry about this. What we have to do is write up the subject in a neutral way. Neutral does not mean that non-mainstream views get equal billing with mainstream ones but it does mean that significant non-mainstream views should be mentioned briefly in the main article and are entitled to an article of their own. When they are mentioned this must be done in a non-promotional way and clearly labelled as non-mainstream alternative views so that the reader is not deceived as to where the orthodoxy lies. I am not knowledgeable in this area and I hold no view on whether this "Austrianism" qualifies as significant but this must be decided by the extent to which it is published and analysed in economic and political circles. Its actual sanity is irrelevant. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton,

When you talk to mainstreamers, especially Keynesianists, they say that inflation is the rise in prices, that inflation means the rise in prices. This was what this article used to say in the very first paragraph.

The big difference between the mainstream and the Austrian views is, as I understand it, that the Austrians say that inflation means increasing the money supply, a distinct action by the state, the effects of which is rising prices, whereas mainstreams look for various reasons as to why the price level rises, and calls the rise itself “inflation”. This is also what the media and the politicians say. Whenever you hear someone who is not an Austrian say “The inflation last year was 4 %”, they mean that the general level of prices rose with 4 %. It is this usage of the word “inflation” that the Austrians reject.

You misunderstood my point. The word “inflation” is a noun, the word “inflate” is a verb. The verb “inflate” means in this context to increase, and the increase is the same as the noun “inflation”. Thus inflating leads to inflation. The difference is grammatical, nothing more. This is, however, cause of much confusion, especially in some foreign languages. Also, as the word “inflate” can be used in other contexts, such as inflating your tire. The Finnish word for “inflation” is “inflaatio”, but there is no translation for the verb “inflate” that can be used in the context of inflating the money supply.

However, the point is that “inflation” as defined by Austrians is a specific, distinct action taken by the state in order to fund its activities, whereas the mainstreamers define it as some sort of complex economic phenomenon caused by various factors, over which we have very little control. This is why mainstreamers favour central banks. Like with the term competition, the mainstreamers have taken a completely straightforward economic term and turned into something mystical that needs to be modeled and explained. The Austrians on the other hand, are fully clear on what inflation is, how it is made possible and what the purpose of it is, and thus devout their time to examine its effects. The Austrian Business Cycle Theory is perhaps the most notable result of this ever continuing research.

I can tell you exactly what the Austrians call the rise in the general price level. They call it the ‘’the rise in the general price level’’. The main and fundamental reason for there even being a debate about inflation is that mainstreamers, in their effort to make economics more “scientific”, have taken a completely straightforward term the rise in the general price level and changed its name to “inflation”, thus opening up a can of imaginary worms, when the original meaning of the word inflation suddenly was without a specific term. Tell me, isn’t the phrase inflating the money supply a pretty obvious give-away of the actual meaning of the word inflation. Thus, the Austrians always say that inflation leads to a rise in the general price level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 12:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Daniel,

if were to follow your advice, Wikipedia would become the mouth piece of specific political views and agenda. I hardly think that is its purpose, considering the strict neutral stance it is supposed to take. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 12:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this just boils down to a difference in terminology/semantics. It's quite clear what the mainstream definition is, and if that's the essence of the difference, I don't understand why you see imaginary worms. (And I recognize there is a connection between "inflating" and "inflation", but that does not change the fact of what the mainstream definition is).

I still do not see the documentation for the claim that this is the "original" definition, and I'm going to flag it as lacking a citation for now. If you can provide a page reference, please do.--Gregalton (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Misessus, you said you do not understand what it means to "own" an article. I said: just watch Gregalton at work. He is brilliantly at work a the moment - completely contrary to what the spirit of Wikipedia is all about - as the "owner" of this site. He is destroying your contributions with Wikipedia rules that he applies as and when he needs them. He is removing your contributions one by one. He knows he will have his way in the end. He is a master craftsman in the Wikipedia way.

Misessus, are you ready to agree with me that Gregalton "owns" this site? Or not yet? Do you still need a few more Gregalton "applications" before you will agree with me?

Kjkkkjj (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Misessus, if you knew enough Wikipedia rules and regulations, you may have a chance against Gregalton. To even find these rules is a very difficult task. Some of them are very obscure and hidden away. Gregalton will, of course, never point them out to you. I am sorry, but, I also do not know enough of them to help you.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Kjkkkjj,

I will keep re adding all of my contributions that have been groundlessly deleted. I am beginning to see your point, however, but thus far I can't say Gregalton has made any factual claims to the site. I feel that I have substantiated all my contributions with reliable references and that all contributions have been fully motivated. As long as no one can show that I'm wrong, I'll make sure my text stays where its supposed to be. As I have all of my text in a word document, it is difficault or time consuming to undo whatever deletions Gregalton or anyone else makes. Thus far, no one has bee able to show that I'm breaking any WP rules and I'm quite confident that I am well within them.

But I do thank you for your head's up. It has made me more prepared and thus more able to respond. Thank you for that.

-Misessus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 16:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please can I ask everybody to adopt a rather more constructive tone. We are supposed to be working towards a consensus not fighting with each other. The polices are neither obscure nor hidden. There is no conspiracy here so please stop accusing people of bad faith. If anything is deleted as a matter of policy I am sure it will be explained by a link to the relevant policy. Things should not be repeatedly deleted or readded. Please read WP:3RR for details. This is not constructive behaviour even when you are in the right.

I am concerned that people are missing the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a discussion forum. We are supposed to explain the world as it is, not argue about what is right and wrong in the things we write about. The key issue is notability. If a an idea, however crackpot, has significant coverage then we can write about it. It is not our role to endorse it, just to document it clearly and honestly. This is why we have a nice article on Phlogiston theory even though it is known to be completely wrong. Conversely, some people may be be working on great new theories that have not yet received significant coverage. Even if the theories are sound they do not belong here, at least not for now. This is why I urge you to stop arguing about the rights and wrongs of economic theories and just work on making the article as factual and useful as possible. To this end, please can we try to agree whether this "Austrianism" stuff really is notable and relevant to this article. If it is then it should be mentioned clearly and briefly as a countertheory to the mainstream ones, not mixed in with them in a way that makes the article confusing.

Please remember that all sorts of people will read this article including school kids and general readers who just want to know a bit more about inflation without getting sucked into arcane disputes over economic theories. We don't serve them well if we make a confusing, arcane or misleading article. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

DanielRigal, please read WP:NPOV. Since you write things like "this "Austrianism" stuff" which is certainly bad faith, I do not think you are the appropriate person to come and lecture us about neutrality and good faith. You are obviously not capable of seeing things in a neutral way when you write in that tone.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Misessus, normally they ban an editor like me after what I have just told DanielRigal. Let´s see what they are going to do this time.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Misessus, if they do not ban me, then they will at the very least leave a very heavily worded threat on my talk page associated with my user name. Let´s now wait and see.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not an economist. I just spotted an edit war and wanted to try to offer some advice."Stuff" is just a vague term I used because I don't really know what "Austrianism"'s status is. It is not pejorative (you may be familiar with the phrase "good stuff", for example) but it is not a word I would have used in the article itself due to its vagueness. I can't help feeling that you are looking for trivial matters to take issue with so that you can avoid addressing the real issues and working towards a consensus on how to improve the article. (Remember the article?) This is not constructive. Anticipating getting blocked is not constructive either. I suggest you rethink your approach. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

See Misessus, there is the warning to me from DanielRigal. What did I tell you?

Kjkkkjj (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It is called the Wikipedia way of doing things.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A question to Keynesians

Mises explained why socialism is unworkable as an economic system in his book ”Socialism”, published in the 1920s. However, it took the Soviet Union to get people to actually believe what to him was obvious from the start. Hayek warned about the effects of rampant inflation during the 1920s, while the foremost mainstreamer of the day, the neoclassisist Irwing Fisher proclaimed only weeks before the crash that no crisis was on the horizon. Hoover’s and FDR’s New Deal was a mix of Keyenesian economic theory and fascist policy, and it resulted in the most spectacular economic failure in the history of the US, and the worst social disaster since the War of Northern Aggression (inaccurately refered to as the American Civil War).

However, this has had no effect on either politicians or mainstreamers. It never ceases to amaze me how people who actually have PhD’s in economics still are able to claim, after all that has passed during the last century up to present day, that mainstream economics has anything to do with reality. While I’m not sure to which school you feel most connected to, I would like to hear your thoughts on this subject, as you clearly have a kean interest in economics.

-Misessus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to to be very strongly invested in a specific view. Please read WP:NPOV and ask yourself honestly whether you can write with neutrality on this subject. If you realise that you can not then maybe you could be of more use to Wikipedia contributing to articles on other subjects. I am not trying to be insulting. Most people find it impossible to write with neutrality about things they care about. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this in before DanielRigal blocks me as he has already warned me:

Misessus, DanielRigal advises you to contribute to other articles since "Most people find it impossible to write with neutrality about things they care about." Logically the same applies to Gregalton.

Let us see if DanielRigal gives Gregalton the same advice in the name of neutrality. Gregalton seems to be very strongly invested in economics articles. Gregalton should please read WP:NPOV and ask himself honestly whether he can write with neutrality on any subject in economics. If he realises that he can not, then maybe he could be of more use to Wikipedia contributing to articles on other subjects. I am not trying to be insulting. Most people find it impossible to write with neutrality about things they care about.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This should get me banned, for sure. It is not allowed to be this logical. This is taking normal logic too far. This certainly deserves a banning.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please DanielRigal, we are waiting for you to give the same advice to Gregalton, here in this space - in the name of neutrality.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is about the very basics of editing on Wikipedia: DanielRigal is right: no-one should edit any article he or she knows anything about. I realized this a long time ago here on Wikipedia.

Kjkkkjj (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Austrianism and Monetarism

These two schools differ from each other very significantly, even on the subject of inflation. They cannot be slumped together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)