Talk:Money illusion

message: "This is a fallacy as modern not exactly [flat currency|fiat currencies]] have no inherent value and their real value is derived from their ability to be exchanged for goods and used for payment of taxes."
The word fallacy is not a flashier, more impressive and concise form of the phrase "false statement."  It means a logically invalid argument. If the crap about money having no "inherent value" is anything other than just a pointless distinction, then assuming money has "inherent value" in this money illusion is not a fallacy, it's just wrong.  Thus stating it to be true would be a false statement.  A fallacy is using true assertions in a logically invalid way (e.g. a circular argument or affirming the consequent) to reach an unmerited conclusion.  Changed in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.55.163 (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fallacy 

message: Money illusion refers to the tendency of people to think of currency in nominal, rather than real, terms. In other words, people mistake nominal variables for real variables.  This just replaces one form of gibberish with the exact same form of gibberish. The part after the in other words should explain the distinction not merely restate it. 71.102.132.76 08:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, I'll fix it up. --I (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity 

message: This is the same as the misperceptions theory, right? Which dictates that short-term aggregate supply is a direct relationship, instead of a horizontal? Help? Mathwhiz 29 (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  misperceptions theory 

message: Banks understand the illusion, Joe Public doesn't. Explains alot about how Banksters get away with Financial mis-management. Governments also complicit but are not fully conversant with the illusion.  Anon 22:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helps to explain House Price crash and Financial Problems? 

message: The last line of the contribution by DontClickMeName
on 13 August 2012 appears to be in error:
"...even though his purchasing power is decreasing
because the interest rate matches inflation rate."
My understanding is that purchasing power is what can
be purchased after adjusting for inflation. Inflation
causes the decline in purchasing power.
If the man's money is inflating at the same rate of
price inflation, then his purchasing power would
remain constant, not decline as claimed.
It's been three decades since I took economics,
so it would be nice if someone could verify and correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.110.86 (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent update in error? 

message: I can't make much sense of this article, although its subject fields are interesting to me. The first sentence is poor, particularly the phrase "at a previous point in the general price level (in the past)." Do levels have points in them? For a mathematician they do, but I suspect that's not the sense intended here.
I wonder if the article could be summarised "some people fail to allow for inflation"? Maproom (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible