Talk:Deflation

Template:Vital article

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Deflation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060228210300/http://www.grantspub.com:80/articles/inflation/ to http://www.grantspub.com/articles/inflation/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ref 26: "Why Stimulus Spending Depresses the Economy". But Now You Know.

This is not a serious reference, this is some guy's opinion on why stimulus packages don't work.

Example of their opinion: "This is why things like cancer research and alternative energy research have produced only insanely expensive, ineffective results." Can we take someone saying that seriously? Without public funding of cancer research, a lot of cancer drugs would not exist...

The article does not have any evidence to support the author's point of view. I'm not saying it's all wrong, but without evidence, it's a worthless reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.252.210 (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I think POV tag should be restored or content reviewed.

This is example of not scientific approach in Wiki. e.g.: "Economists generally believe that deflation is a problem in a modern economy because it increases the real value of debt, and may aggravate recessions and lead to a deflationary spiral.[2]"

"Economists generally believe" - what economists - who asked them about it and counted them?

"it increases the real value of debt" - why that is a problem? Calling that a problem is POV. "may aggravate recessions and lead to a deflationary spiral" - That is very tendentious POV on opinion of economists.

Reference [2] to the article "Hummel, Jeffrey Rogers. "Death and Taxes, Including Inflation: the Public versus Economists" (January 2007). [1]" doesn't confirm statement directly or indirectly. Article is about problems with inflation cost calculation, word "deflation" mentioned 2 times, not in context mentioned here. No references to "deflationary spiral" or "aggravation of recessions" whatsoever. I suggest to remove that line, or find better source for that line, or make that under "opinions". If that is opinion, then other opinions needs to be represented, especially opinion of economists.

Philipp Bagus is a professor of economics at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos.

BAGUS: Yes, yes. And some of the mainstream economists, not the Keynesians, but some mainstream economists, say yes, growth deflation is good and can be allowed. Growth deflation is simply when the productivity increases and more goods and services are produced, and as a consequence prices fall. So this is actually what economies should look like. When people save more, invest in capital goods, there’s free competition, everyone gets richer by just increasing productivity and prices fall, something that should be natural, and something that was more or less natural in the 19th century. We had growth deflation in most of the Western world, so no problem at all. There was high economic growth and price deflation at the same time. Actually one caused the other; economic growth caused the price deflation. But today we are not accustomed to this anymore because we live in a world of never-ending inflation

134.134.139.74 (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Dubious

• Economists generally believe that deflation is a problem in a modern economy because it increases ... *

That statement is on top of page and is not supported completely by ANY RS. Link points to article that has nothing to do with topic.

1. *Economists generally believe* is not supported by any reliable data, study about believes of economists and so on.

2. *deflation is a problem in a modern economy because it increases... that may aggravate recessions and lead to a deflationary spiral*

That statement is not supported by linked article, nor by common sense, nor by RS.

Later edit changed link to different article, that doesn't fit to excuse that statement either.

E.g. there is an opinion of Philipp Bagus is a professor of economics at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (summarizing opinions of some mainstream economists: "growth deflation is good and can be allowed"). That appears in interview as well as in the book: In Defense of Deflation. Authors: Bagus, Philipp ISBN 978-3-319-13428-4 There are other papers on that topic from other authors.

Moreover historical data and publications I provided in edits (which was undone by Agtx/Lawrencekhoo) overweeningly support another POV that deflation can't be properly linked to depression.

Summary of "Deflation and Depression: Is There an Empirical Link?" https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr331.pdf Contradicts with that wild statement: "Deflation was present during most economic depressions in US history" from well known RS - "butnowyouknow.net" :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamdui24 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Irresponsible reversal of edits

Removal of well framed commits without particular complaints for each block, isn't a good practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Protectionism&type=revision&diff=740276223&oldid=739941833 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Deflation&type=revision&diff=738850160&oldid=738647591

Please respect work of other people and if you do edit, at least read what you are editing. Removal of relevant pieces from articles makes it biased.

Citation/opinion that is supplied by link to reliable source MUST be present in linked materials. Otherwise you dis-inform people about citation and subject. Opinions that are not supported by link (e.g. "majority of economists" (who counted? original research?) and/or reliable source can't be part of Wiki Article. Please review Article before and After commit, before you decide to undo whole edit. If edit is problematic but better than original Article undoing it is unreasonable. Make your modifications, clearly communicate your vision of problem with the edit. Support it by evidence, especially if you are removing facts supported by links on reliable sources and restoring speculations.

192.55.54.36 (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hamdui24 Look, I don't know much about this topic, I'll admit. However, your edits add a giant block quote from a podcast to the beginning of the article. That's not really a good source nor is it good writing. It also relies solely on WP:PRIMARY sources, which is also not good. Finally, you are in danger of running afoul of the WP:3RR. I'm going to revert these edits again, because I firmly believe that they do not improve the article. That isn't to say that it couldn't use some work—it could—but this isn't the way to do it. agtx 03:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Agtx, let's talk about it. First of all podcast is a way to deliver opinion of RS - economic professor. Secondly you misinterpret my edit as being from one source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamdui24 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding reliable sources here. What we're looking for is peer-reviewed journals and mainstream news. While economics professors do talk on podcasts, their statements don't have the kind of reliability that comes with published work. I understand that you appear to have a strong liberterian viewpoint, and it's possible that those viewpoints can be part of a Wikipedia article. However, you'll need to find published, secondary sources discussing these issues. The article from the Fed might work, although your edit appears to overstate the point that the authors are making. You have to make sure that you're merely reporting what the source says, not performing your own analysis of it. agtx 04:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Alternative opinions - when deflation can be beneficial

There is cause for concern when only one opinion is proposed in an article. Deflation has occasionally been seen as something positive in the past, and several current (albeit mostly fringe) economists consider it beneficial or at least harmless. When someone adds edits to remind the reader of this, it seems there is some trigger that this material immediately needs to be deleted without the slightest trace.

Could some editor who wants this article to be taken seriously, please, include information about what alternative views there are, who had them, who has them, what arguments they have and which of their arguments have been refuted, please?

This is an encyclopaedia - not a political manifest or a propaganda machine, not even for mainstream views. Mlewan (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The last edit adding an alternative Austrian opinion failed on style and sources. It did not very clearly separate and label the conflicting opinions, and has inappropriate use of sources as described in WP:DONTUSETERTIARY, so secondary sources should be cited instead. That's why I reverted it the first time. LeBleu (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)