Cost-Push Inflation
Why is this included as one of the negative effects of inflation? Isn't it just a tad circular to argue that inflation is caused by inflation?
The intro
There has been some edit warring over the introductory section. I am concerned that an attempt is being made to conflate this subject with monetary inflation. This seems wrong to me as these are separate topics and because it causes the introduction to diverge from the content in the rest of the article. I would welcome a few more eyeballs/opinions on this. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Monetary inflation is Inflation. Prices cannot "inflate" or "deflate", prices rise or fall. Much like a balloon "inflated" with helium causes it to rise. Definitions of the word have been coopted so different dictionaries and common uses of the word have splintered. Unfortunately for most, the consequence of inflation has been so connected to the the word that in common communication we have combined the 2 separate steps of printing money and then prices increasing into one word "inflation." This is an incorrect use of the term both grammatically and descriptively. Consensus on this oage should be limited to economists and language experts, not trolls. Nightside (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
You may personally prefer that interpretation, as is your right, but it is certainly not the academic consensus on inflation. The article has to balance all notable views giving appropriate weight to all the more widely accepted ones. Putting one view in the introduction and presenting it as true by definition would be to endorse it over all the others, which would be completely non-neutral. It is not for us to make that call. Our job is to reflect the academic consensus.
Also, please be careful with those personal attacks. I appreciate that you believe that you are obviously and uncontroversially correct and hence find it hard to understand that other viewpoints exist but flinging around accusations of trolling is not helpful.
Anyway, we have each had our say now, so, unless you wish to present any new reliable sources for consideration, let's just wait and see what some other people think. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
You are not allowing a balanced approach, you are specifically protecting the current version. I have left 99% of the article intact. I tried explaining it to you, but it seems you can't be saved. Time and time again I have tried teaching you that the word has been co-opted, you do not listen. The meaning of the word is not my personal opinion, but a fact of the DEFINITION of the word from the time it was first used in this context. My final word is this: The definition of inflation according to The Federal Reserve is :"Inflation is the process of making addition to currencies not based on a commensurate increase in the production of goods" ref:
https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publications/economic-commentary/economic-commentary-archives/1997-economic-commentaries/ec-19971015-on-the-origin-and-evolution-of-the-word-inflation.aspx​, download the pdf file, and read it. I can help explain it, but I think it will do no good.
Mic Drop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightside (talkcontribs) 23:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The very first sentence of that linked commentary supports the current article contents. I quote the term has become nearly synonymous with "price increase,". Sure, other ideas existed in the past, and even still persist to some extent, and that is fine. We are not trying to hide that, and we already cover them in detail, but as your own suggested reference shows, that is not what the word means now when used by the majority of economists and other people now, or even in recent decades. The whole point of that commentary article is to encourage people to understand that there is a nuanced discussion around what inflation is and how it has historically been understood. Sure, its author clearly favours the monetarist viewpoint and wants to promote understanding of it, but they manage to do so without crudely pretending that other viewpoints do not even exist. You seem to have latched on to the parts of it that you perceive as useful to supporting your opinions and ignored all the rest. I would also point out that, while American definitions of inflation are certainly relevant, we have to take a global view of the subject. As such, no American source gets the last word on this. (And that is not to say that any British, French or whatever source does either! We have to look at the global academic consensus.) So, you are welcome to drop the mic, if you want to, but the discussion will continue, probably for many decades to come. In the meantime our job, as Wikipedians, is to write about the current state and history of the subject in a neutral way irrespective of our own opinions.
Does anybody else want to have their say on this? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I tried helping by fixing a real problem in the world. Don't have time to debate with the ignorant. You'll have to suffer the consequences of your decisions without my help now. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightside (talkcontribs) 08:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Psychological aspects are missing
New empirical research shows that the relationship between the amount of money and confidence in a currency is primarily based on the fact that the confidence of market participants in the assets of the central bank plays the decisive role. The influence of the central bank’s assets on the exchange rate and the price level: essays and empirical analyses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A543:24EF:0:1973:64C7:7F71:9319 (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Return to "Inflation" page.
Last edited on 15 January 2021, at 16:54
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
Privacy policy
Terms of Use
HomeRandomNearbyLog inSettingsDonateAbout WikipediaDisclaimers