Talk:Inflation/Archive 1

message: I think the introduction should be more clear when it states the two different views of inflation.--ase 20:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Make the introduction more clear

message: Why is this page full of Keynesian nonsense?  The version before "172"'s "NPOV" fixup was more accurate.  Does "neutral" (in NPOV) mean that objective facts can be ignored in favour of not disagreeing with counterfactual religious beliefs, or does reality actually count for something? 218.101.88.104 05:10, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Keynesian nonsense"

message: This paragraph is under the Misery index title: "In opposition to the deadweight loss argument against the redistributive nature of inflation it has been argued that, in economies where the rate of vss capital gains tax is low or nil, inflation acts as an important “wealth tax”, and that low inflation societies will tend to see wealth condensation."
If you google "vss capital gains", the only page you'll find is Wikipedia's inflation article. I'm thinking there should either be an explanation for what that is, or the higly controversial allegation that inflation will act as a wealth tax should be removed. Furthermore, what has that got to do with misery index?--Ezadarque 02:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is vss capital gains? 

message: I put in the Quantity Theory of Money. Hopefully this would counterbalance some of the Keynesian stuff.
Mydog: I find these statements rather highly controversial: " However, this cost may be "worth it" if it avoids a serious recession, which can have even greater costs.
In fact, controls may complement a recession as a way to fight inflation: the controls make the recession more efficient as a way to fight inflation (reducing the need to increase unemployment), while the recession prevents the kinds of distortions that controls cause when demand is high."
The author of these statements admits that most economists denounce price controls and then goes on to say that they could be "worth it"?? This is non-neutral speculation. Furthermore, I believe his statement that price controls help fight inflation is highly speculative as well. --Dissipate 07:59, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added the quantity theory of money 

message: In dealing with inflation there is only one price that should be regulated. And that is the price of money (not the price of credit). 
Interest rates are the price of credit. If you want credit then interest is the cost you must bear. The price of money is the amount of stuff you must exchange for a given quantity of money. If you want money then stuff is the cost you must bear. 
The price of money is determined by both the supply of money and the demand for money. Hence their was significant inflation during the black death of the middle ages in Europe even though the stock of money (gold coin) was basically fixed. During this period the demand for money dropped significantly as the population and the economy contracted. Moneys value plummeted briefly.
Regulating the price of credit through interest rate policy is just good old fashion centralised command economy thinking. Instead the price of money should be benchmarked against gold or a commodity index and regulated using [open market operations] or better still self-regulated in a system of free banking. 
There mistake of the 1980s was thinking that the size of the money supply should be regulated. Its the value of money thats most important not the quantity.  
The current mistake is in thinking that a government appointed guru should be given god like market power in order to control the price of credit. 
TERJE 22-JUNE-2004
11:07, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controlling Prices 

message: Should the article be called "Price inflation"? My understanding is that this is what the common use of the term is short for. The current title could then go to the existing disambiguation page.
As it is now, the intro paragraph begins "In economics, inflation is a fall..." which seems counterintuitive and does nothing to explain the reason why the term is used. I will insert the word "price", which seems to clarify as well as provide a more useful contrast with the alternate usage and the 1920s US example in the second paragraph.
toh 23:39, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
I would also go for that ae» inflation page, i.e. monetary expansion.
--The HellCat 23:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short for 

message: Just had a poetry attack while reading this article -- it's extremely lame and I'm very ashamed of myself, but couldn't help it:
"Why is there ever inflation?"
Is always the common man's question,
When we all know that the nation
Builds goods in excess of consumption!
--Gutza 23:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Gutza, wouldn't "goods in excess of consumption" lead to declining prices?  Peter Johnson [17:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflation Poetry 

message: Inflation - the mechanics of inflation: the great government swindle and how it works A detailed analysis of the mechanics of the great modern government swindle known as inflation.
:Yes we know it's stupid and a "joke". But I think it should be there.--Jerryseinfeld 12:08, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: if the article isn't going to adequately recognize inflation as inflation of the money supply (adequately, as in part of the primary definition in the opening paragraph), it should be renamed "price inflation". the opening should at least be changed to "In popular terminology, inflation is an increase in the general level of prices of a given kind." "economics"? c'mon. the implication that only austrian economists hold the money supply definition is almost creepy. remember, popular opinion is not necessarily NPOV. SaltyPig 00:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  money supply inflation and price increases 

message: Economists usually factor out food and energy prices because they jump around so much; doing that showed zero inflation.
But factoring out food--and especially energy--may not be the best way to look at the inflation numbers at this time. Energy costs, many economists fear, will play the leading role in the economy in the next few month.
:I found these sentence very informative since I have always wondered why they never include energy. The question is, what is the best way of handling this dynamic cost? Pulling them out is damn, especially form the bulk of inflation.
:The core rate is nonsense.  If you belive (incorrectly) that prices are inflation, how can you then justify leaving the most responsive products out of the calculation?  Inflation is an increase in the supply of money and prices only reflect the reletive scarcity of that money.  This is the difference between _cause_ and _effect_. Carbonate 13:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasoning behind core inflation 

message: This article has been larded up with POV garbage, outright violations of citability, and carving by POV warriors. Assertions like "the mistaken use of" and so on are simply against the rules. I've rolled the article way back before these edit ars,  and will take a more interventionist stance from here on in to protect the article form anonymous vandalizing.
Once again, the rules are that we are producing an encyclopedia reprsenting citable sources in an NPOV manner without original research. These addtions were such a mess that keeping them was simply impossible.  Vague circular loops aboutglobalization, gold bug sermonizing and the rest are not acceptable.
Stirling Newberry  14:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Mega Revert 

message: Reversed all of Stirling Newberry's changes as he has reverted to a much earlier version than justified, wiping out the work of many good editors. True, some improvement is needed.  But rather than improving the layout of removing irrelevencies and tidying up, he just puts it back to some vague date in the past.  Please have another go, Stirling, but do it properly.  You are not a Cyber God. Deception 16:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Striling Newberry - Your mega revert is a sign of laziness

message: I sincerely doubt that Austrian economists are the only ones that hold inflation is an increase in the supply of money. Look at webster.com - "an increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods and services resulting in a continuing rise in the general price level" -That's the exact definition Milton Friedman (who is neoclassical, not Austrian, or so I've heard), that inflation is an increase in the supply of money that outpaces the increase in output.
----
* My understanding is that Prof. Friedman is the founder of the Monetarist school.  Peter Johnson [10:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: er, my mistake. I was refering to consumer purchasing power, not inflation. The point I wanted to bring earlier was that since inflation in not real (ie nominal) it shouldnt affect consumer purchasing power. I somehow mistook purchasing power of money as purchasing power of consumer. __earth (Talk) 04:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Meaning of Inflation 

message: First the inflation bounty is $1, now it's $5.  Forgive me if my maths is wrong, but that's 400%! What greater testiment to inflation could there be? Gwaka Lumpa 15:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inflation bounty - inflation in action

message: I was wondering,  if you buy a gold ring, will that increase inflation?
Only the young 01:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: What are the consequences of inflation have not been discuessed yet in this article, such as "shoe leather cost", "menu cost" etc.
egc
The most important consequence of inflation is that those who save are made poorer.  Everyone who owns there house, everyone with a stock portfolio, everyone with money in the bank.  This makes society poorer because it is the savers that invest in new businesses, new captial good and create new jobs.  These should be the headline consequence with "shoe leather cost" an mere foot note, otherwise you risk marginalising the real problems.
Carbonate 00:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consequences of Inflation?

message: I've removed that section.  It's too long (with not a single wikilink -- in fact, it's so long that I didn't really bother reading it at all until today), unencyclopedic, and makes wrong assertions.
If there's anyone who actually wants this in, please take the time to fix it, and add it back in piece by piece, with discussion.  I see nothing of value in it.
RandomP 10:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the above section again.  Please do not readd without discussion.  RandomP 16:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've taken it out again.  When it gets re-added, as begins to seem inevitable, please note that it is a copyvio from . -- Mwanner | Talk 21:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is inflation all about? 

message: I'm sure this will be heavily contested so before you start, please read at least the first part of Adam Smith's book "The Wealth of Nations".  Is is free (published in 1700s) from the Guitenburg Project and made enough sense for someone to name a beer after the guy ;)
Carbonate 01:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labour 

message: User:Carbonate and I had a very long discussion, both here and in a mediation case, about the subsection "Gold" in the section "Measuring Inflation", which currently reads:
:There is a saying "Gold is money, period." Gold and silver have been used as money since the invention of money. These two precious metals are a benchmark of inflation and have held their value for millennia compared to the centuries, at most, of the Denarius and Pound sterling both of which started out based on precious metal. Gold has experienced an historical inflation rate of about 2% (subject to short term swings many times larger than this) as new supplies are mined and refined and it is this immutable rate which has prompted governments throughout history to turn to the creation of fiat currency. While the rate of inflation of the gold supply is limited by the effort required to find feasible deposits, the labour required to mine the deposites that are found and the energy required to refine the mined ore in to gold, nothing effectively stops governments from printing fiat currency.  Gold and silver, in one form or another, were used as money from at least 600 BC and are currently minted in to gold coin and silver coin all over the world.
:At the Bretton Woods Conference, the Bretton Woods system solidified the gold standard by requiring the signatories to adopt an exchange rate for their currency.  This system remained in place until Richard Nixon "closed the gold window" after France began to demand the gold represented by the U.S. dollars held by the central bank of France.  This run on the U.S. gold deposits happened because there were more dollars in circulation than was backed by gold. Today, the U.S. Treasury values its gold at $42.2222 per troy ounce as stipulated by the Bretton Woods agreement.
My suggestion for this section, if it is to stay, is
:Gold and silver, in one form or another, were used as money from at least 600 BC to at least the end of the Bretton Woods system in 1971. After 1971 transactions even between countries became independent of gold; nonetheless, gold and silver coins are still minted all over the world, and some websites allow users to use gold to pay for goods and services.
:If gold is considered a form of currency, its money supply has risen by about 2% a year since 1850, as new supplies are mined and refined. Unlike with fiat currency, there is no way, even in theory, to introduce unlimited gold into the economy.
This is drastically shorter, but is, I believe, an accurate description of the history of gold as money, and what little can be said about it as a measure of inflation.
RandomP 19:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, both seem reasonable.  One is more succinct and easy to read, but other includes more info.  Hard call.  What about mentioning that people thought gold would collapse in value once governments stop using it, but then it went on to skyrocket in value? Or would that be POV?MrVoluntarist 16:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Measuring Inflation/Gold section 

message: As I commented above about the section on gold, which I have now repaired, this article is far below wikipedia standards because large portions of it are written by far-right-wingers whose eccentric views of money and inflation are far outside of the economic mainstream (and let me add the economic mainstream is fairly well dominated by political conservatives, for instance Martin Feldstein (Harvard), Greg Mankiw (Harvard), and Milton Friedman (Chicago), so it is fair to characterize the viewpoints advanced buy this article as far-right). 
It is simply amazing that an article on inflation contains almost no mention of the velocity of money, a concept central to the understanding of inflation. My suggestion is that a ground-up revision of this article closely match the form and content of the discussion of inflation in introductory macroeconomic textbooks. Personally, I have seen versions of the intro to macroeconomics textbooks authored by Mankiw, Krugman, and Hyman, and they are very good and very clear and any of them would be an excellent start to a revision of this article.
There is indeed real controversy among economists on how to define and measure inflation, but it is not between the far-right goldbugs and the rest. Kitteneatkitten 21:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is truly awful and needs a ground-up revision

message: I have updated the gold section to what had been discussed in the medation between RandomP and myself even tho there was little input on the RfC.
In another lame attempt to censor the current inflation issues faced by U.S., the graph that plotted the money supply was tagged as being copyrighted.  I have created a new graph with data up to May 2006 and placed it in the public domain.
Carbonate 06:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti gold censors 

message: A number of things stop banks from printing currency willy-nilly, and the book value of gold has no relevence. Please insert in-line citations for all fact tags before removing. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like me to add myself to your meditation? If so, please ask the mediator if that is possible. I have lingering concerns beyond those you two hashed out - specifically, that you are adding in unsourced facts and origional research. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: PS - I re-read the mediation - to the point where it fell apart. It was suggested you list the article at WP:RFC. You did. I believe both myself and another editor came as a result of your listing, and both believed the gold section was a disgrace. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every fact in the current article was challenged by RandomP and subsequently sourced.  Please quote what is origional research.  Both of the new editors have also stated or made their prejudices against gold clear.  Those prejudices do not belong in this article especially when they are applied in the form of cesuring relevant information.  Carbonate 14:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please copy the citations for the 1% per annum figure presented in the mediation to this dissucsion.  I want to see evidence that you have read what you say you have.  Carbonate 14:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I am unable to find it in the book using the index and it would take me a week to reread it all. May I offer a link to Bill Bonner's website that states "As Mark Skousen showed in his book The Economics of a Pure Gold Standard, the global supply of gold has historically tended to grow 1-2% per year."" Not a WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So now we have gone from unsourced to not a WP:RS. How does Mark Skousen's book not qualify as a valid reference?  Carbonate 15:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?" Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seem to have conviently left off the next sentence "However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or Al-Qaeda".  Are you suggesting an economics professor is akin to Al-Qaeda? Carbonate 16:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I also doubt that a Ph.D. is going to have view that are more extream than "This article is currently a disgrace, given the undue weight given to crazy conspiracy theories and the lunatic economic theories perpetuated by gold swindlers."  So tell me again about an agenda? Carbonate 16:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your book is published by the Mieses institute, which is a heavily biased institution. If you must insert disputed facts about gold into the article, please include attributions and citations. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you intend to cite your facts, or are you just going to revert war over it? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Other authors have edited the content without tagging it.  You seem to like the wikilawyering (given the number of 3RR complaints you have on your talk page) to get your agenda through (and you clearly have an agenda). Carbonate 16:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal attacks are never acceptable. Do not engage in them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags: 

message: A critique
----
Gold and silver historically were the two metals most used as money, though no major economy does so now. Because of the costs of mining and processing gold and silver, these metals are not as prone to hyperinflation as fiat currency. Still, hyperinflation often did occur in nations that used gold and silver as their currency as a result of the debasement of their coinage, the process in which the gold and silver content of coins is reduced, sometimes to the point at which virtually no gold or silver is used at all in coins that were once at least 90% pure.
:This paragraph doesn't start off too badly despite the attempt to minimize more than two millenia of history in an off hand way.  The last sentence however tries to tie debasement and hyperinflation to the metal which is clearly not the case.  The metal behind the currency never lost value but the wording is done in such a way as to make it seem like coins that were 90% pure were valueless.
Gold and silver, in one form or another, were used as money from at least 600 BC. Gold and silver coins continue to be minted all over the world, in particular in South Africa, Canada, China, Australia and the United States. These coins are a convenient way to invest in these metals. In the early United States, the gold and silver coins of other nations, in particular Spain, were among the most common types of money, in particular those used for foreign trade. The term "2 bits" comes from an spanish coin that has been cut in to eight pieces.
:The first sentence is a copy and paste from the original content but after that we seem to go off the topic and start talking about coins from various parts of the world.  This material is covered in other articles and is only used to water down the longevity of golds store of value as measured in millenia (again).
The use of metals like gold and silver as money became unpopular because as Western economies expanded faster than the supply of gold and silver following the Industrial Revolution, deflation was the frequent result. Deflation, especially rapid and unexpected deflation, causes great distress for debtors, who must repay their loans with increasingly valuable money.
:Western economies are less than a third of the people on this planet and this tainting the content with an anglo american perspective.  The distress of debtors is unrelated to gold as a measure of inflation and its only purpose is to inject a socialist reason for shunning gold.
Typical of other Western countries, at some point or another, the United States has used a de jure fiat currency, a real gold standard, a real silver standard, hybrid systems in which the dollar was officially backed by gold and/or silver but restrictions on convertibility of paper money to the metals meant the dollar was de facto a fiat currency.
:Now a gold standard is being placed alongside fiat currency in a convoluted way.  There is no need for language like "de jure" and "de facto" in an english article except to make the author sound authoritative.  This one sentence paragrapd says nothing of value and is poor style as well.
The United States dollar stopped being even a de jure gold-standard currency in 1972 after Richard Nixon "closed the gold window" following French demands that the United States exchange gold for the US dollars held by its central bank.
:Again a gold standard is being put down with language like "de jure" and the superiority of the U.S. dollar emphasized in direct opposition to the point of this section.
:Not one paragraph is free of "anti gold" POV and the content is sturctured to preclude the use of gold as a measure of inflation.  This is inline with the opinions stated on this discussion page by user:kitteneatkitten.  This content is disgraceful and if it isn't fixed I will be submitting to arbcom.  Carbonate 17:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. This article is a disgrace because of the aggressive editing of Austrian/goldbug types. There is little reason for an article about inflation to mention gold at all, yet you goldbugs want it everywhere.Kitteneatkitten 22:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gold is money.  It is real money with a definable rate of inflation.  The fed isn't even reporting the broad rate of inflaiton anymore which make it undefined. Whether you agree or not, the other side has to be represented in the article.  I don't envey the position you may find yourself if this goes to arbcom and you loose, writing for the enemy. Carbonate 12:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold section is unacceptable 

message: Is inflation an invevitable condition of our international economy? Does it have discreet causes that can be addressed by public policy or coordinated efforts of consumers? I remember my first computer that cost over $1000 in 1974. My first PC nearly a decade later cost about the same but had 1,000 times the power and capabilities. My latest PC cost only $500 and is at least a million times better than those earlier models. It is a clear example of improvements in technology and manufacturing leading to much more product for actually much less money.
So if someone makes a breakthrough on fuel technology or cheap, long-lasting batteries, could we possibly anticipate a dramatic reduction in the cost of transportation?
I bought a Pontiac Firebird in 1991 for $13,000. Soon after GM dealers were offering Camaros (essentially similar car) for as low as $10,500. Then GM decided to redesign the car, shortening it somewhat, and possibly making a few other techological improvements and priced it at nearly $20,000. Was the price increase a result of the costs of retooling and redesign or just a way to increase their profit margins? The result was that fewer were sold (less demand at the higher price) and the product was recently discontinued. I wonder what would have happened had GM simply made minor changes instead of a total redesign. Could the price have stayed in the $11,000 to $12,000 range? Would it still be in production today? I note that the PT Cruiser still is sold in this low price range, although it isn't quite as popular as when it was first introduced. 
Could we manage to keep inflation under control by simply keeping successful product lines in existence? Who would make that decision?
unsigned on 11:34, 28 July 2006 by User:Rrman
Electronics are the worst possible item to compare.  Electronics benifit from miniaturization which nothing else does.  Your car isn't 1cm long, your fruit isn't measured in milligrams and you don't live in a doll house.  Electronics by their very nature are not valid to compare over time.  Try substituting "a house" or "a loaf of bread" and see what conclusion you come to.  The car example shows that prices of goods that consume quantities of material (iron ore, energy to reduce the ore, silica, energy to turn the silica in to glass, etc) are going up in price.
What you are really asking is, can we hide inflation with economies of scale.  The answer is no.  Economies of scale are a natural product of mass production (especially in electronics) and in your example the amortization of the development costs over more and more units.  This is not deflation and it doesn't counter the effect of doubling the number of paper dollars in the world.  Dollars (or whatever) have value because they are scarce.  When you double the number of dollars, you halve the value of all of them.  Unless of course you are in to hyperinflation in which case you more than halve the value of all the dollars.  
I believ the US is on the verge of hyperinflation.  Why? Because they have a triple deficit
* The fiscal deficit of about 300 billion per year
* The trade deficit of about 2 billion per day
* The social security deficit
And that doesn't even cover the goodwill "everyone in the world hates america" deficit. 
A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money - some U.S. Senator.
Carbonate 12:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is inflation inevitable? 

message: [User:Kitteneatkitten] has suggested that I am vandalising this article by insisting on balanced content with fringe ideas that don't appear in any textbooks.  I would like him to explain how the ideas of Adam Smith constitute fringe.  J.P Morgan Chase is one of the largest banks in the world and part owner of the Federal Reserve.  J.P. Morgan was a successful and well respected banker.  These people are not fringe by any definition of the word. I would also be interested in how he justifies the oppinion of billions of people on the Asian continent constitute a minority.  
I understand that you don't agree with me Kitteneatkitten, but many others do and you should not be putting people down by dismissing them and calling them right wing "goldbugs".  Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to have their ideas respected.  I feel you have done nothing but disrespect my freedoms by belittleing me and censuring my content.  If you wish to express your ideas I encourage you to do so but not at the expense of mine. Carbonate 05:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe 

message: What happens when you inflate a tire?  It gets bigger.  Tires can get bigger for other reasons, heating of the air for example (which is an increase in velocity of the air) but when one inflates a tire one is generally at a service station and using a pump to add air.  The same is true for the economy.  Inflating the money supply makes prices bigger.  Inflation is an increase in the money supply.  It is not a result of it direct or otherwise.  When the money supply is inflated, prices get bigger.  Other things like money velocity and shortages can make prices bigger but it is the change in money supply that delivers real results.  You wouldn't try to make your tire bigger with a hair dryer would you?
Carbonate 04:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An analogy 

message: Reviewing this page, the concerns about the POV and OR nature of the gold section are numerous and repeated. Some of the facts that do not appear to be appropriately sourced to me include:
*The supply of gold is reasonably constant.
Do you dispute the math above?
:You engaging in math is origional research. JBKramer 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not my obligation to prove negatives - you must provide reliable sources for all of your facts. JBKramer 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. I have cited this information. JBKramer 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Engaging in math, again, is origional research. JBKramer 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please fix it before reinserting it. JBKramer 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why don't you fix it?  Deletion is not acceptable. Carbonate 17:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because I don't think it's accurate. If I were to write it I would say that "there are a limited number of individuals, commonly called goldbugs that believe that the value of gold should remain reasonably constant, thus providing a measure of inflation. The vast majority of economists disagree, and no reputable, current economists use gold to measure inflation." I expect this would make you more angry than just removing it. JBKramer 18:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have fully reviewed the talk pages in question. JBKramer 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JBK: math is not original research.  If you show the result of a simple calculation based on sourced figures, that's perfectly acceptable. MrVoluntarist 20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold 

message: Is the CFP Group, a gold selling service, a reliaible source for the amount of gold in the world? CF ? JBKramer 16:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFP group 

message: Probably the best way to include the gold/inflation info that you want, Carbonite, is to find notable people who say the things you want said, and then quote them, without doing any math at all. Could you find some notable goldbugs that agree with you and quote them? JBKramer 16:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, "quote" them. You are obviously saying what they say, all you need to do is say who said it. Thanks. JBKramer 18:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inlcuding gold inflation info 

message: The reason this article is such a disgrace, despite the best effort of many editors, is that Gold-obsessed editors have repeatedly reverted other edits, making what should be a straightforward encyclopedia article into a disorganized and incoherent jumble of paragraphs.
Some particular problems:
* There are only two ways inflation is commonly measured: price indexes and GDP deflators. The other uses are historical artifacts outside the strange world of libertarian think-tanks and for-profit companies that sell and promote gold as an investment.
* The use of the word "Neo-Keynsian." This is not a word you will ever find in a reputable economics textbook.
* Huge numbers of random barely-sensical and unsourced statements. E.g.: "Neo-Keynesians would say that the money supply may increase without inflation occurring."
These errors will remain as long as Carbonate aggressively reverts attempts to improve this article.Kitteneatkitten 00:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism of this Article by Carbonate 

message: Have a look for yourself. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inflation&oldid=4219789
Two years of edits have made the article worse. It was fine then, it is a disgrace now. The ideological edits made by libertarians so the article reflects their various pet theories is the only cause I can identify. 
Kitteneatkitten 03:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy fix to this ..., now it's just as good as it was then. JBKramer 11:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this change. Thanks. Kitteneatkitten 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Kittem, I'm glad you now support mentioning gold as a measure of inflation.  It's time you came around. MrVoluntarist 13:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never opposed it. But efforts to imply that it is a major method are misleading. Kitteneatkitten 04:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also think the version from two years ago was better. Terjepetersen 11:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Is Much Worse Now Than Two Years Ago 

message: So if monetarisim relates inflation to the amount of money, why does the formula not include the amount of money?  In fact, that formula looks an aweful lot like an expression of the simple supply/demand curve!  And then they explain it all by saying supply and demand for products ergo money supply?
Carbonate 01:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monetarism 

message: *
*
Carbonate 22:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zimbabwee 

message: I reverted the most recent changes because embedded in them was the statement that Robert Lucas "found no significant relation between Money growth and growth." This is totally and  completly innacurate. Lucas found that "Unanticipated monetary expansions... can stimulate production as, symmetrically, unanticipated contractions can induce depression." JBKramer 14:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is fully descriptive currrently. JBKramer 06:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't threaten a revert war, you will lose it. If anything the economics sections of wikipedia give far, far, far more coverage to monetarist, austrian and "supply side" views than is present in current literature. Stirling Newberry 11:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The monetary section is inaccurate, the equation given is for the supply demand curve and does not include any factors of money supply despite their being described in the text.  There are a number of inaccuracies that must be addressed.  And by the way, it doesn't matter how much representation is given to this subject in the economics section, we are talking about inflation in this article and the monetary view has to be expressed as it relates to inflation for the article to be neutral.  So go ahead oh wonderful deleters of content, time for you to create something. Carbonate 20:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The good being discussed in the equation is money. What concrete changes do you propose? JBKramer 22:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rversion 

message: This page really needs a bibliography. Anyone interested in compiling it? Stirling Newberry 15:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: "In the long run, inflation is a Monetary Phenominon" is a statement without meaning - In the long run, we are all dead. "In the long run" does not mean the same thing as "Ultimately." JBKramer 21:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Monetary Phenominon" 

message: Can someone provide a source that Keynesian's view on inflation is a mainstream today? -- Vision Thing -- 12:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you quote relevant part? -- Vision Thing -- 13:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keynesians 

message: Is a good description of the econometrics of inflation. Since this is more important to more readers than arguments over classical political economy, we should have such a section. Creating a market basket, deciding what is price increase from inflation and what represents productivity, baselining, seasonal adjustments - these are all issues where there are pervasive misunderstandings and errors in reporting. 
Stirling Newberry 03:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing from this page 

message: This is the first discussion I've ever read. It is really scary. It has lowered my confidence in Wikipedia articles considerably. I admire the restraint most of the editors show, but is there no way to shut down someone who is truly disruptive and will not let go? CasualReader 17:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: This article is not the place for essays, opinions, or criticism. Terms like "dogmatic" do not belong here (under "Effectiveness of interest policy") and this article should only contain descriptions of the topic and NPOV descriptions of different theories. Be careful to only add facts to the article. I'll get around to some edits and organization soon. ~Kruck 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Then where? I came to this artcle hoping to find examples of cost differences -- essentially, time-travellers exchange rates pretty much -- out of interest after reading the article on History of pizza, where it states that the first pizzas sold at Lombardi's in NYC cost a nickel, but since many people couldn't afford that, they sold by the slice.
The idea of people not being able to afford a nickel when we commonly throw pennies away now (and some countries with a dollar system have stopped having one cent pieces) was pretty extreme, and so I wanted to be able to look up the purchasing power of different amounts.
So, if this article doesn't go this direction with any of it, can someone suggest which article might? Personally, I think such information is just as on topic as the theories on why inflation happens.
:Please sign your conversations with 4 ~'s. You'll find that the external links have calculators of prices in different years. You are in the right place, but I don't think the answers you're looking for can be expressed well in words. ~Kruck 05:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If not here... 

message: This article really needs some kind of graph for support. Does anyone agree that an image like  from the Supply and demand article is an appropriate way to display inflation? My econ professor at Ohio State University uses graphs like these to give a basic idea for what happened in many historical situations. I think we could use several in this article as well.
~Kruck 05:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph 

message: What can be suggested for the pre-modern inflation tendencies, generally the reduction in the silver content of say the denarius that took place from the mid 1st to the 3rd century, in which case the coin was replaced by theantonninus, or the english penny which was silver, then a large and finally a small bronze coin. Or the chinese over issuence of paper money especially uner the Yuan(Mongol) rulers, where the coinage value fall as the paper money in circulation outstripped supply. Enlil Ninlil 05:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why cause this topic is about inflation mate. Enlil Ninlil 07:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Either Carbonate doesn't know what he is talking about or he doesn't speak English because the penny exceeding one cent of copper just occured for the first time a few months ago, I don't know where he pulled the whole "long since" thing, out of his ass I suppose.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: From what I know a basic copper 1 cent coin was worth less it's weight in copper, that is why it was changed to copper plated zinc I think to save on cost. And some souces state they cost 0.7 cents to make. This is debatable. But Im talking about the slow reduction of silver and an increase in prices. Enlil Ninlil 06:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that a valuation is stamped on the penny.  Being worth a fraction of a dollar, as the dollar falls in value due to the rampant printing of them (tho this has become a misnomer as it is all done electronically these days) the metal that is used in the coin takes more and more dollars to buy.  Inflation causes the value of the metal to exceed the value of the coin and that leads to the goverment debasing the coin.  The best solution I have heard to this comes in 2 parts 
*1 - Stop stamping dollar values on the coins.  Instead, make them like tokens with an exchange rate that is published by the government.
*2 - Prohibit the exchange rate from moving down.  The published exchange rate of the token should not be allowed to fall and always be maintained above "dollar" value of the metal.  This keeps people from hording the coins for their meteal and assures the people that they won't be exposed to deflation (which hasn't happened in the US since WW II by the way).
Carbonate 04:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman

message: Hello there Stirling Newberry, hope this version is more to your satisfaction.  I actually don't find all that much of my previous addition to be "POV" as I was for the most part only quoting what other people had said.  The splitting of the history of
inflation into three periods isn't POV either; it's based on simply looking at the
graph, which goes slowly down from 1257 to 1717, stays flat from 1717 to 1933, and then drops like a rock.  My graph is as far as I know original work, but from public sources, and I think it is relevant; I haven't seen anything published over as long a time period as that anywhere else (maybe back to the 1600s somewhere). -- Mika
131.215.242.164 08:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Inflation 

message: A user designated 146.115.40.86 deleted the section of this article called Measures of inflation.  I have restored this section and am now asking for discussion:  Should this section stay or be deleted?  My vote is "keep."  ProfessorPaul 00:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A deletion without explanation

message: I think it an important inflation-related concept. __earth (Talk) 14:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Fisher Equation? 

message: "Other theories, such as those of the Austrian school of economics, believe that an inflation of the general price level and of specific prices is a result from an increase in the supply of money by central banking authorities."
This is wrong. Austrians define inflation as any increase of the money supply over specie. Pricing levels have nothing to do with this. Intangible2.0 16:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing word with concept, and making a far too sweeping claim about how Austrians define “inflation”.  The word “inflation”, like many other words, has multiple definitions.  In the sentence that you quote, the claim made is correct, even though expressed in language different from that which would be used by Rothbard &alii.  And Austrians such as McCulloch have accepted the more popular meaning of “inflation”, thinking that it is a waste of time and effort to fight for an old use when the ideas can be easily communicated in language more familiar to most audiences. —SlamDiego 07:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro definition 

message: Definitions of terms for things that exist outside of theory — such as inflation — should be presented without avoidable theoretical baggage.  There is certainly no need to presume that one can write meaningfully about “the price level” in order to define “inflation”. (It's quite appropriate to discuss the mainstream theoretical view in the body of the article, which discussion should surely involve one of and in terms of a price level.) There is, BTW, nothing peculiarly Austrian in rejecting the notion of the price level. —SlamDiego 00:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  “the price level” 

message: Hipocrite is objecting to mention of the original definition of “inflation” in the lede.  His claim was that this was part of “undue weight provided austrians in the header”.  Now, I am not wed to mentioning the original definition in the lede, but:
#Here, again, there is nothing peculiarly Austrian in noting the older definition.  I have certainly heard a Friedmanite do just this at the outset of a presentation.
#Dictionaries still usually list the older definition.
#Pre-Keynesian economic literature is more likely to use the older definition than the newer, and some users of Wikipedia are going to come trying to figure-out what the H_ll Hume or somesuch is saying.  I think that users are well served by a header (or at least by a lede) that addresses this quickly. (The article in fact needs some discussion further on, to explain why the newer definition arose from the older, and why it supplanted the older.)
—SlamDiego 01:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older definition 

message: The subscetion entitled “Hedonic adjustments to measuring inflation” contains two paragraphs.  The second of these, possibily with some further clean-up, belongs somewhere in this article, but it does not belong in that subsection. —SlamDiego 04:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph errant 

message: I wish to add the following two sentences after the first sentence in the introduction on inflation.
"Inflation has a monetary and a non-monetary consequence under the current Historical Cost Accounting paradigm. Its monetary consequence is the destruction of the internal real value of all monetary items over time in an economy subject to inflation. The non-monetary consequence is the destruction of the internal real value of all constant real value non-monetary items (eg. retained income) valued at Historical Cost and not fully or never updated as a result of the application of the stable measuring unit assumption." 
Reference:
Smith, Nicolaas J., RealValueAccounting.Com - The next step in our fundamental model of accounting, Lisbon, RealValueAccounting.Com, 2005.  (Paperback) 
How does the process of authorization for additions to the inflation article work? Is this addition acceptable? Who can give this authorization?
Nicolaas Smith 18:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the process is usually Wikipedia: Be bold in updating pages, but in this case ... can you rephrase that in English, please? I wish I could give a suggestion, but lacking a PhD in Economics, I have no idea what you just wrote, so can't give further advice, for example if the heading is the best place for it, or if it would be better off in the article body somewhere. If you can simplify a bit while conveying the same meaning, that would be preferable. Thanks! --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorization requested for adding: "Inflation´s monetary and non-monetary consequence". 

message: The only information on the effects of inflation comes under "problems of inflation" and it is very poor. I think that the effects of inflation should be a large component of this article.
Are you suggesting I put the monetary and non-monetary consequences of inflation under "problems of inflation"
Nicolaas Smith 07:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of inflation? 

message: Should there be a section that discussed inflation in pre-modern times?  Historically issues like debasement of coinage had significant economic impact and often resulted in inflation.
--LeperColony 18:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-modern inflation 

message: *Google search. —SlamDiego 00:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  “ratex” 

message: "In mainstream economics, the word “inflation” refers to a general rise in prices measured against a standard level of purchasing power.
A standard level of purhcasing power. What a strange way of putting it. Needs to be simplified. 
Chimbwidz 13:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introduction 

message: I am asking permission to add only that: 
The Historical Cost paradigm which incorporates the universal stable measuring unit assumption results in inflation having two components: a monetary component and a non-monetary component.
:Can you provide a reputable reference that neatly and cleanly says that? Given that Milton Friedman's comment that "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon" is widely-known (as well as many critiques of that comment), this statement should be referenced.
:I should also note that I for one don't understand the logic behind the statement: "The Historical cost paradigm results in inflation having two components." What does this mean? Could it be said more simply? Are you trying to say that inflation is caused by the HCA, or that inflation can be analysed as having two components? The purported causality link is unclear; perhaps if it were phrased differently it would be evident what is being claimed.--Gregalton 09:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat: could you provide a reference please?--Gregalton 11:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I should also note that I for one don't understand the logic behind the statement: "The Historical cost paradigm results in inflation having two components." What does this mean? Could it be said more simply? Are you trying to say that inflation is caused by the HCA, or that inflation can be analysed as having two components? The purported causality link is unclear; perhaps if it were phrased differently it would be evident what is being claimed"
Why did you waste your and my time asking these questions? 
All you want is a reference. 
Answering all of that was just a waste of time.
Just requiring references sorts out this whole dicussion page very neatly. I think the page should be renamed References Please. 
I will suggest this to Wikipedia.
When I find those references I am 100% sure that you still will not add to Wikipedia that Historical Cost Accounting destroys value. 
That is the main reason why this article should go into dispute to take it out of your sole power.
D´Artgnan 11:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asking permission to add that The Historical Cost paradigm which incorporates the universal stable measuring unit assumption results in inflation having two components: a monetary component and a non- 

message: Gregalton I don´t come here for your insults.
I do not think you are the right person to be involved in this article.
D´Artgnan 13:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gregalton I don´t come here for your insults. 

message: Withdrawing request to add the two components of infaltion. Gregalton proved to me that that is wrong.
The Historical Cost paradigm which incorporates the universal stable measuring unit assumption results in inflation having two components: a monetary component and a non-monetary component.
He also proved to me that there is no such thing as non-monetary inflation and that the Historical cost accounting model never destroyes value. He is a genius. 
He is right. He knows better.
So, request withdrawn. 
D´Artgnan 17:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawing request to add the two components of infaltion. Gregalton proved to me that that is wrong.