Talk:Stagflation

message: Since this term was coined in the UK and can be used in reference to any free market economy, why is the article so heavily biased to the US, particularly in the introduction? How about removing all those references to 'The Fed' and replacing them with non-county specific terms like 'a central bank'?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.31.4 (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The actions of the U.S. Federal Reserve are clearly at cause and leading the global eceonomy into stagflation.  The article appropriately focuses on the U.S. because the U.S. can without a doubt be seen as the policy maker whose choices impact the global economy most in this matter.  It is appropriate.ExecTaxes (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FURTHER ON THIS POINT:  One need do no more than note the collapse of European, Eastern and South American stock markets of the day of the U.S.'s Martin Luther King Holiday, a collapse said by all to be directly linked to the certainty of a U.S. recession despite the Bush plan to stimulate the U.S. economy.  Ignoring the fact that U.S. stagflation leads to global stagnation, at best, is totally unrealistic.  Economics is a science of realism.ExecTaxes (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: US Bias?

message: SUGGESTION TO OTHER EDITORS: (This paragraph appears redundant.ExecTaxes (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from article

message: Added the tax void. The whole on stagflation can be reorganized indeed.
Colignatus 03:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jimmy Carter appointed Paul Volcker as the Chairmen of the Federal Reserve in 1979.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russ Anderson (talk • contribs) 22:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It is important to bear in mind that stagflation creeps in rather than being announced.  If indeed a current round of stagflation has begun to hold its grip on the U.S. economy, Fed Chairman Bernake will likely get full blame due to the two rounds of rate reductions he made in September and October 2007.  Others who understand Washington and recall the great warning that former Fed Chairman Greenspan gave to him, a warning mentioned prominantly in his book released during the same period -- the warning that Congress was on the watch and fully prepared to take away the Fed's autonomy -- will argue otherwise
ExecTaxes (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes, reorganize a bit

message: Stagflation ended during the new age of technology in the 1990s.  This caused an increase in supply.  The supply curve shifted to the right faster than the demand curve.  There was greater GNP (less unemployment) and lower prices, which is the exact opposite of stagflation where the supply curve shifts leftward and inflation and stagnation occur.  The policies of monetary restraint by Paul Volker was not the answer to stagflation.  The decrease in demand lowered prices but caused more unemployment.  When both the President and the Federal Reserve shifted policies to increase the money supply, this caused less unemployment but higher prices.  Neither policy was satisfactory.  And stagflation is never dead and can occur again.  69.141.240.64 06:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Volcker successfully targeted "inflationary expectations" and held rates high long enough to be able to see a round of labor contract renewals at moderate increases, which confirmed that inflationary expectations had subsided, at which point he lowered rates.  Ronald Reagan adapted willingly and initiated policies in support of Paul Volcker's plan.
ExecTaxes (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: the end of stagflation

message: The reason I undid the asset classes example is that housing costs are part of the Consumer Price Index.  So falling home prices are factored into the CPI.  That fact that the CPI is increasing despite falling home prices is the inflation part of stagflation. - 
Russ Anderson (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Asset Class Example

message: I hope no one minds. I'm fact-templating the area and rewriting a bit. This thing needs citations like insert-extremely-relevant-analogy/simile ;) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right this article is a mess. Probably the best way of improving it would be to start with the historical context in which the term arose. Stagflation came as a huge surprise in the 1970s to Keynesian economists accustomed to a stable Phillips curve relationship who used models mostly based on demand shocks rather than supply shocks. When they suddenly faced supply shocks (oil shortages) in the 1970s, their usual policy prescription (greater inflation to reduce unemployment) simply fed into higher inflation, and eventually the Phillips curve shifted. This is standard undergraduate economics today so it should not be hard to reference an article like this. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up 

message: There is a whole list of theories offered on the page. Almost all are explained without citations. Many are far from being mainstream views. This article needs to start with the mainstream view of stagflation and could then have a short section on alternative theories. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of junk theories 

message: Please follow the Wikipedia style for the capitalization of headings. Wikipedia uses "sentence case" for headings, and not "title case", that means that only the first letter of the first word and the first letter of proper nouns are capitalized, not the first letter of every major word. Propoer nouns are generally the names of people, places or organizations. Please see WP:HEAD. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 00:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting 

message: To much space in this article is taken up by a theory called differential accumulation. Checking that link demonstrates that the theory is mostly promoted by two political science professors (Bichler and Nitzan) at York University in Toronto, who have done some writing about stagflation, but it's by no means central to their research agenda.  See also their chronological archive. Since these links make clear that this is the point of view of a small number of people, I will delete the claims in the introduction that this is one of the 'three main theories' of stagflation today. Including a discussion of 'differential accumulation' in this page is an excellent idea, but it should also be shortened, as the current article greatly exaggerates the impact of this alternative theory. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differential accumulation is not one of today's main stagflation theories 

message: I have slightly changed the lead section about Macleod (sic - see his article and this Conservative Party PDF) because I think it was misleading as it stood. Here is what the relevant sentence said:
:The term stagflation is generally attributed to United Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer Iain MacLeod, who coined the term in a speech to Parliament in 1965.
The misspelling of his name is a minor matter, but the description of his job is extremely misleading. In 1965 there was a Labour government under Harold Wilson, and so Macleod held no government post at all at the time. His term as Chancellor was still five years in the future, and indeed was extremely short: he died just one month after the Conservatives' 1970 election victory. The previous wording made it look as though Macleod's coining of the term "stagflation" was related to his Chancellorship. As that is quite wrong, I have changed the wording. Loganberry (Talk) 21:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iain Macleod 

message: Richard Nixon announced wage and price controls on August 15, 1971.  The first oil price shock started in October 1973.  Nixon did not implement Wage and Price Controls "in response to" an oil price increase that did not occur until two years later.  
For further information see "A Monetary Explanation of the Great Stagflation of the 1970s", http://fordschool.umich.edu/rsie/workingpapers/Papers451-475/r452.pdf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russ Anderson (talk • contribs) 13:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nixon's Wage and Price Controls preceded the 1973 Oil Price Shock 

message: Glossary of Burda and Wyplosz, Macroeconomics: A European Text, 2nd ed., 1997:
:Stagflation: periods when both inflation and unemployment increase. 
Glossary of Barro, Macroeconomics, 5th ed., 1997:
:Stagflation: a situation in which a recession is accompanied by high and rising inflation.
Glossary of Blanchard, Macroeconomics, 2nd ed., 1004:
:Stagflation: the combination of stagnation and inflation.
::--Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions from prominent textbooks 

message: The section dealing with 2007 onwards unfortunately is out of place in Wikipedia. It is essentially an academic treatise on potential future theories of stagflation. It takes a series of recent articles, conducts some original analysis on them, and rolls this up into "prospects" for stagflation. However, since Wikipedia is a tertiary source, this is not permissible; it is the Wikipedia definition of original research (note the structural differences between that and academic original research). Then, there's the fact that from another angle it can be seen as little more than news reportage, as it quotes endless statistics from endless agencies. To be permissible in Wikipedia, the text needs to deal with what third-parties have reported regarding the views of possible stagflation as expounded by notable sources (people or organisations or etc). It cannot construct its own view, or its own case, or its own anything else to consider the 'prospects for stagflation'.
I therefore propose imminently to delete the entire section. This would be a temporary measure while the content is rewritten to be both encyclopedic and Wikipedic in policy compliance. It could be re-written gradually in-situ, or given the rather zealous writing we already have it might be better on a subpage like Talk:Stagflation/2007 redraft.
I will deal with other problematic sections of the article in due course.
I also observe that much of this talkpage is also occupied with semi-academic discussion of the situation in the world at present, and I am concerned that this being exported to the article proper. Just as the article is not for putting together ideas, the talk page is not for discussing them in general - it is only for discussing how to write the article. I recognise that many talk pages stray in this way, but in this case the degree of export into the article appears to be unacceptably high. Splash - tk 23:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You act as if stagflation is something that is fully understood and about which everything is generally known. Hello! ExecTaxes (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Err... no. The article can of course talk about what theories there are regarding stagflation, by referencing the publications such theories have been developed in. It can also talk about the bits that not understood, again by referencing sources that say they are not understood. It cannot write entire sections that attempt to understand stagflation in their own right, and which do not appear anywhere to cite third-party sources that state this understanding, or lack of it. I have removed the section in question. I'm happy to help reconstruct something that is acceptable to Wikipedia. Bear in mind that I'm not here as an economist, merely a Wikipedia who sees a very problematic article. Splash - tk 09:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Point taken. You might consider the possibility that the topic of this article concerns the dilemma which leaves the entire Western world (and more) hamstrung right now. The lead topic on this talk page points out that as example defining "dilemma" itself is the essence of this crippling thing, stagflation. We who discuss wording and work out agreement in this "Talk" section must walk the fine line between sounding inflamatory or apocalyptic on the one hand and watering the subject down too much on the other. Inasmuch as you may not be aware of the fact that stagflation on a global scale threatens to bog down all of society for a decade or more, if allowed to take hold, I won't attempt to convince you. Has it taken hold yet? Now there's another matter which doesn't belong here, right? Thanks for the note.  ExecTaxes (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 21st Century section contained unsubstantiated claims, inappropriate conclusions and ignored the possible effects of a once-in-a-lifetime drop in real estate and commodity prices. In light of the tremendous interest in the subject and fast-moving changes, I believe the section is valuable as a characterization of the thinking of early 21st century observers, but it is completely inappropriate to reach any conclusions. Therefore, I reworked it and moved it to the end, where its value will be to connect present-day readers to the issue. The "responses" section was also too heavy-handed and obviously supply-side. I think that by re-working the language I kept the facts in proper context but removed bias in style and substance. Both later sections can now be finished with informative citations. I do not believe there are any controversial or unsubstantiated claims remaining in them. --Dlawbailey (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious problems with the later sections 

message: References 12, 19 and 20 list Macroeconomics as being written by Abel, Andrew; Ben Bernanke and Britney Spears  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.183.95.81 (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a joke? 

message: Right now the first paragraph cites the glossary (G pg 8, or "G-8") of Blanchard's Macroeconomics (2000, 2nd) with it's explanation of stagflation and the idea that no one policy addresses both stagnation and inflation simultaneously (which is slightly controversial, according to my prof, thus I decided to check my copy of Blanchard). I am using Blanchard's Macroeconomics (2009, 5th edition, Instructor's Review Copy). All the glossary says is "Stagflation: The combination of stagnation and inflation".
After writing this talk post as a head's up, I believe I am now going to perform a minor edit of that sentence. In my edition Blanchard also provides Stagflation discussion on pages 152 and 583, according to the index... pg 152 is just the basic definition and pg 583 gives historial and "rational expectations" context. I'm going to update the citation and the last part of the first paragraph to reflect this.
Feel free to make an improvement/correction... I'm just trying to make sure I've explained my intended edit correctly as I'm not a frequent Wikipedia-editor (this is as of November 9th, 2010, 9:45am Pacific Time).
Thanks, 
JDM
128.193.8.12 (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper Citation of Blanchard

message: In the article, Keynes is quoted because he apparantly gave the best explanation of the neo-classical position.  However, the quotations only address his views on destructive powers of inflation.  Given that the neo-classic position (according to the article, at least) is that inflation cannot affect supply, this section either should include quotations explaining Keynes' view on the factors that caused unemployment or should choose a different champion of the school's position. 
Since the two sides are seperate, was it just coincidence that the US economy suffered a supply shock while the government was pumping more liquidity into the system?  If so, the line about the causes of stagnation and inflation requiring seperate explanations should probably be removed.  If not, what is the connection?
Also, comments above suggest that there is a second, largely accepted view (from monetarists?  Neo-Keynesians?) that appears to have been removed.  I have no idea what the removed explanation is; is it worth re-adding?  I would think, from even a strictly historical POV, that it would be.  Thanks, guys!  174.24.103.26 (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Section on Keynes 

message: An editor inserted a tag (see ) saying that the section on the causes of stagflation might be 'misleading'. Such a tag needs an explanation here on the talk page. The section on causes (mostly written by me) is a summary of the explanations of stagflation offered by mainstream macroeconomics textbooks. The summary is supported by several page-specific references to the points in the textbooks where those explanations are discussed. If you think the discussion is inaccurate, please explain why, so that it can be improved. References would be appreciated. Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on causes 

message: Under the section "Explaining the 1970s stagflation"-
"Perhaps the most notorious factor cited at that time was the failure of the Peruvian anchovy fishery in 1972, a major source of livestock feed.[16]"
I've never edited a page before and this is my first time posting in a talk, but I believe this information to be malicious and should be reported.
03:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken citation and irrelevant information 

message: Or, it's not the most common I have seen in explanations of stagflation.  It may even be wrong, or far more seriously :-) perhaps correctly answering the wrong question!!
The graph I have most commonly seen for classic energy-crisis driven 1970s-style stagflation shows both the demand curve and supply curve as diagonal lines which intersect somewhat in the neighborhood of a right angle.  It's a very economics-textbook type of graph.  And then, when there's a "supply shock" such as a jolting increase of oil prices, the supply curve moves inward and the new equilibrium point results in both higher prices and lower GDP.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our one graph is not the most common one 

message: The following textbook includes the stagflation graph I'm most familiar with:
::Macroeconomics: Principles and Policy, 13th edition, "Ch. 10  Bringing in the Supply Side: Unemployment and Inflation?", William J. Baumol, Alan S. Blinder, Cengage Learning, 2012, 2016.
In contrast, the sidebar for general economics on the left gave me the wrong idea, and I think it's likely to give other people the wrong idea as well.  I ask, if one of the most common forms of stagflation occurs when the supply curve shifts inward, why include a graph showing an outward shift of demand curve? ?  I don't think we should. 
And regarding the graph in the above Baumol and Blinder textbook,
(1)  Does a reasonable, straight-down-the-middle reading of fair use permit us to include this graph?
(2)  And/or could we find another similar graph?  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  demoting economics sidebar, which shows inflation, but not stagflation 

message: this is the place to discuss the change you're proposing. I don't see how copying in a dictionary definition of "dilemma" adds anything useful to this article. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dilemma definition