Talk:Deflation (economics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] When deflation happens

Deflation basically happens when production of goods and services grows faster than the amount of money available (or the amount of money shrinks faster than production).

- In the late 19th century the money supply (gold) was relatively fixed while the Industrial Revolution brought a huge increase in the amount of goods available.

- In the Great Depression the failure of businesses and banks, and stricter government regulations, caused a drastic decline in lending, contracting the money supply.

- In Japan in the 1990's the decline of the stock market and real estate decreased banks assets, causing them to also decrease lending.

This is from the Monetarist ( http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism ) point of view, but it seems simpler yet more effective to me in explaining these examples than the theories in the main article.

 --Tom Tulinsky Culver City, CA, USA tomtul2@yahoo.com

[edit] Removals by Tacitus Prime

I'm removing

More certainly, large amounts of deflation are as destructive of economic health as large amounts of inflation. Severe deflations have been associated with severe recessions or depressions just as severe inflationary periods (or hyperinflations) have been associated with recessions or depressions.

It's not certain at all -- it's a reversal of cause and effect. Also counterfactual comments about people delaying purchases (Keynesian nonsense about consumption driving the economy, as well. Investment is what's important, duh!)

I put this back in and reworded it a bit. The section seems quite fair - both do harm. Small amounts do less harm, large more. I would be very interested to hear from anyone with an explanation of how this could not be true...? Please attribute your source so I (we) can do further reading and understand the reasoning if it isn't plain.
Claiming that people delaying purchases is counterfactual is interesting. How is this wrong? It seems common sense that people delay their purchases due to impending price drops all the time. I have done so with electronics myself, waiting until the price of something dropped to a reasonable level. -- user:Justanyone | talk Wednesday 5 may 2004 1:38 pm CDT.
But you buy sooner or later, yes? Why not keep waiting -- it's only going to get cheaper!? You provided the answer yourself: you wait until the price drops to "a reasonable level" - implying that you wouldn't have bought at all at the old price (or higher). I.e., you're not delaying the purchase because of deflation, you're making the purchase because of deflation; in a non-deflationary world, you'd have "delayed" (not purchased) forever! (Unless your idea of "reasonable price" changed, but "deflation" is not an issue then) Tacitus Prime 04:11, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'm removing this, too:

Any time consumers spend less, they have to put their money somewhere. In deflationary times, it makes sense for them to pay down their debts and increase their cash (or cash-equivalents like bank deposits) reserves. Economy-wide, this can be an unhealthy when it locks up capital (good economic investments are unfunded). Or, it can be a healthy adjustment if consumers had too much debt or insufficient savings to cover temporary income (job) loss.

Again, it's nonsense: in deflationary times, people need less money, so they're not going to increase their cash holdings.

I have moved this down and reduced the size somewhat to reduce the contention about it. It does deserve to be said that typically people reduce debt during deflations because that makes financial sense. -- user:Justanyone | talk Wednesday 5 may 2004 1:38 pm CDT.
Why? Interest rates (try to) take inflation/deflation into account, so there's no particular reason why debtors should be worse off in a deflationary world; interest rates would just be lower. In any case, reducing debt doesn't mean increasing cash holdings -- the money goes to pay down the debt; after that, extra money may go into consumer spending, or investment... Tacitus Prime 04:11, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

This next is just bad wording:

Most adverse effects of deflation are arguably due to rigidities in the economy: If wages, prices and interest rates adjusted seamlessly and predictably to deflationary expectations, they would have no real economic effects.

What is this "rigidity"? If it exists, it's caused by government policy, not the "economy".

Rigidity is the inablity due to entrenched financial interest to adjust to different circumstances. I have returned this paragraph and explained further.-- user:Justanyone | talk Wednesday 5 may 2004 1:38 pm CDT.

I changed "positive effect" to "negative effect" -- the intention of the stated policies is to prevent deflation, i.e., to negate it, not to increase it. The use of the word "positive" was clearly intended to imply that deflation is a bad thing, not that the effect is to drive it, but that's NPOV if anything is.

I fixed this to be "Other government policy changes that can reduce deflation include:" which is better wording. Thanks... -- user:Justanyone | talk Wednesday 5 may 2004 1:38 pm CDT.


I removed

It is obvious that extreme deflation can cause serious economic side effects (a kind of vicious circle known as a deflationary spiral). However, inflation is also obviously quite bad, with serious side effects itself.

for two reasons: (1) it isn't obvious at all, and (2) it's blatantly untrue -- a "deflationary spiral" can only occur until the supply of credit money has been sopped up: the supply of "real" money is a limiting factor. Unlike an inflationary spiral, which can go on effectively without limit.

Maybe with 50 or 100 more years of good economic statistics gathering, the answer to this will be known.

The answer is known. Some people just don't like it -- they're the ones with the non-neutral POV.

I would love more info on what you mean by credit money and 'real money. Please don't say that real money is Gold, this might brand you as a bit of an economics fringe element (nothing personal, I just believe that a very few people would actively advocate for a return to the gold standard).-- user:Justanyone | talk Wednesday 5 may 2004 1:38 pm CDT.
I assume [s]he means by "credit money" money that is not backed by existing Federal Reserve notes (in the US case); that is, fractional reserve banking means banks lend out far more money that actually exists - that is "credit money" (but correct me if that's not what you mean, anon). In the event of a "bank run", that money isn't available to be paid out (unless Bernanke starts running his presses on overtime - but then it would eventually end up back in the banking system forming new reserves for an unprecedented inflation!).
As for "very few people would actively advocate for a return to the gold standard", anyone who actually understood the issues (and wasn't actually evil) would ... even Alan Greenspan did, in 1960! Tacitus Prime 03:00, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

There's still a lot wrong with the article (e.g., the price of cars falling is not deflation! Deflation proper is a fall in the money supply, but price deflation means a general fall in prices, not just the price of cars falling! During deflation, the production costs of the cars will be falling as well, so the factory can still make a profit) 218.101.88.104 05:53, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I believe the link to 'Myths about Deflation' site is NOT NPOV. This site advocates for the return to the gold standard, which is very much NOT mainstream economic thought, regardless of it being true or not. Since it is under debate if Gold Standard policies are good/bad, I'm okay with the link, but we need to forewarn people that this site is not NPOV somehow.-- user:Justanyone | talk Wednesday 5 may 2004 1:38 pm CDT.
I very much agree that this article could well be improved further. While I am quite literate in general economics, I'd welcome any professorial perspective on this topic, with historical perspectives, advancements in monetary theory, current Federal Reserve Board policy, perspectives from Japan and throughout Asia after their currency crises of 1998, etc. -- user:Justanyone | talk Wednesday 5 may 2004 1:38 pm CDT.

[edit] Good economic things to do

These are all problematic. A lot of these are "good economic things to do" but most of them don't have anything to do with deflation.

  • Reduce the value of the local currency (makes it cheaper)
    • Imports inflation by increasing the cost of imports.
    • Reduces the yield from savings.
  • Increase government spending
    • Makes up a shortfall in consumer spending with government spending.
    • Wisely spending on infrastructure like roads, bridges, water/sewer, electrical, etc., can enable quicker economic growth as well as providing jobs and solving needs;

Other government policy changes that can reduce deflation include:

  • Improve public safety
    • Safe and happy populations buy more goods, work harder, are more efficient workforces, etc.
    • Money spent on safety is, in a sense, wasted; it is capital not spent in a way that generates economic growth;
    • Money transferred during crime is often inefficiently allocated;
    • Many crimes causes damage to capital goods or service capabilities, reducing economic growth potential;
  • Improve bankruptcy laws
    • When businesses fail, they trap business assets including both the physical plant and monetary assets;
    • Business assets being well-deployed is vital to economic growth;
    • Bankruptcy laws dictate how assets of failed businesses are sold off to pay creditors;
    • Creditors have a portion of their cash back and can use it for economic growth;
    • Bad bankruptcy laws trap business' physical assets and creditors cash in limbo until a court settles things
    • Good bankruptcy laws make very clear how courts should decide ownership of a failed company's assets, increasing economic turnover and enabling good growth.
  • Improve property ownership laws
    • Reduce tight restrictions on real estate property sales preventing efficient transfer of property to where it's more useful and thus increase economic growth;
    • Reduce limits on foreign ownership of certain asset classes (real estate, corporate stock, food- or defense-related industries, etc.), preventing foreign transfer payments (investment) from buying up and exporting excess capacity or capital equipment. This turns excess capacity directly into growth-inducing and inflation-producing cash, and thus is a very effective tool;
    • Engage in trade agreements that reduce mutual tarrifs. This increases exports, and reduces excess domestic capacity;
    • Solidify laws surrounding private ownership. Some former communist countries do not have clear laws on private ownership, which leads to highly inefficient allocation of capital, reduced foreign investment, etc.
    • Improve contract laws so transfers of property during a execution of a contract is very predictable and reliable;
    • Improve both criminal and civil justice systems: court systems that are predictable, just, fair, ethical, and reasonably quick can improve economic growth very quickly.
    • Improve government transparency: money wasted by corruption or fraudulent government activities like confiscation of private property stifles growth and drives the economy ;
    • Reduce government red tape: if there are complex procedures required to create any new business, even a small one, prevent economic growth;
    • Reduce incentives for captial flight by creating a predictable business policy environment. Capital flight is wehre money is sent out of the country for safekeeping, reducing capital available to grow the economy.
  • Loosen labor laws to enable businesses to:
    • freely reduce their workforces (lay off or fire workers) to quickly adjust their capacity to the demand;
    • easily fire inefficient, incompetent, and/or unethical workers;
    • change workers hours such that a factory can work multiple shifts, using physical capital more efficiently and generating growth;
  • Tighten some business regulations:
    • Force businesses to state their real assets and liabilities, so companies that should be bankrupt can be seen and either bought out or forced into liquidation;
    • Better environmental regulation may reduce production capacity by taking inefficient and polluting equipment offline;
    • Simplify and/or fine-tune tax collection to enable government to receive a more fair share of the income from business activity and use it for transfer payments (to needy people) or growth projects;
  • Increase interest rates (if interest rates are already at zero, during extreme situations) (NOTE: this is a controversial tactic)
    • Deflation is caused by excess capacity.
    • Reducing capacity forces reduction in supply, redistributes production capacity to new (more efficient) uses.
    • Raising interest rates raises cost of capital
    • Fragile businesses fail, reducing capacity.
    • Fragile consumers who had high debt burdens go bankrupt, forcing redistribution / write-off of bad debt; money moved to more productive uses;
    • Banks are forced to write off bad loans & improve loan-giving decision making;
    • Overall credit quality improves, driving capital to on-average-better performing areas, inducing growth.

I agree--Confuzion 03:23, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A bit unwieldy?

I think this article has grown a bit upwieldy, esp. the tools to fight deflation - the government policy stuff could go on forever if you really wanted to; but I don't really know how effective they are, relatively - also, they may be easily summarized as 1. stimulate economic growth 2. increase consumer confidence 3. legislation to improve capital/labor allocation

Also, is the following statement accurate? I thought that, for the most part, the US economy was mainly, if not completely, still in a mild inflationary state during 2001 to 2004... does anyone actually have facts to back up the statement below about US deflation from 2001 to 2004?--Confuzion 03:22, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Minor deflations: Throughout the nations' history, inflation has approached zero and dipped below for a short time (negative inflation is deflation). This was very common in the late 1800's, and even more recently in 2001 through 2004.

Rubbish! The US (and pretty much the whole world) has been inflating massively for years. What are you using to determine recent deflation? The CPI? That's a useless measure, well known to undercount inflation.

Removed statement about recent inflation. From above, I was just questioning why that statement was placed there as I also had doubts about the statement; I did a quick lookup, and according to http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/CurrentInflation.asp the statement seems to be incorrect - from the inflation table, the lowest monthly inflation between 2001 and 2004 was June 2002 at 1.07%; no deflation appears in this timeframe, not even for a single month--Confuzion 09:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

This statement is inaccurate: "decrease in the money supply (the M3). If there is less money, each unit of currency becomes more valuable, and this is deflation. When an economy contracts, production is too high and must fall to meet (decreased) demand. However, the capacity to produce often remains the same for a while."

A decrease in the money supply does technically make each unit of currency more valuable but it also must be noted that wages go down at an amount that is equal to the money supply contraction. For instance, if the money supply is cut in half, prices are cut in half but so are wages. Therefore, each unit of currency technically becomes more valuable, but a consumer's spending power will not be increased. I'm changing this statement. --Dissipate 22:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Overhaul?

This article needs a complete overhaul. It is very confusing because it does not distinguish between the different types of deflation. If deflation is defined to be a cause (general decrease in prices), all the main causes must be clearly stated. I'm working on an overhaul, it should be done in a few days. --Dissipate 03:48, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed paragraph, June 2005

I took this out of the article:

In truth, Joe's bank doesn't really like this situation, either. Since Joe is effectively paying more for the loan, the probability is much higher that he will default on the loan, which pushes up costs for the bank significantly. Contrary to popular belief, a foreclosure is often a net loss for a bank.

Seriously, this contradicts the paragraph immediately prior to it, and it is hardly a solid economic argument. What this is saying is that bankers dislike an opportunity to charge people higher real interest rates. - Nat Krause 05:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I assume these posts are left so that debates are not restored in the future. The removed quote is actually correct. Assume a bank has a deposit for $10 which is subsequently loaned out. If deflation occurs and the borrower defaults, only paying back $8, the bank's equity holders are left to foot the other $2 owed to the depositor. Not only does the bank owe $2, but the $2 is worth *even more* because deflation has occured. daleyc 2/6/07

[edit] consumption goods and production goods inflation deflation

I've made several changes in order to explain the difference between consumption and production goods. Deflation inflation desinflation is only in consumption good prices. So for instance in the 1980's we've had worldwide desinflation and at the same time inflation in the asset prices.


I ve also added comments on Bernanke helicopter drop threat. And reference to the fact that the central banks now print a much smaller part of the money supply in the 1920's

I've written a keynesian explanation of deflation. Implicit reference to samuelson and fisher. I've always wondered how some people can actually believe in monetarism (the money supply has increased way faster than the inflation in good prices, if you don't understand that the rise in asset prices explains the difference you understand nothing) let alone austrians ... Come on who actually believes in markets ? And gold standard !!! Backward as can be. Anyway I suppose an encyclopedia is supposed to allow a diversity of views, so I've just added the keynesian one.

I guess adding a marxist one would be worthwile.

I object to the changes that have been made to the introduction such that it reads "or a rise in the purchasing power of money with respect to a large class of consumption goods or services, over a period of time". The presumption that inflation and deflation is something that is measured by consumer goods is not true of all economic schools. Supply-side economics is quite specific in its criticism of relying on consumer goods as a measure as such prices are a lagging indicator or monetary errors. The introduction should be as general as possible and the bolded section above should be shorted to just say "or a rise in the purchasing power of money, over a period of time". Any discussion about how you would best measure or define the purchasing power of money should be discussed outside the opening because it is not an area on which there is concensus.

I agree with your point, however I have a problem, in the price index subject in wiki, there's nothing about an asset price index. So right now the definition is misleading since it says that deflation is a fall in the prices of the thing bought or sold (cPI and PPI) but there's nothing about the price of things held and mostly assets. So can we do sth about the general price level ?

[edit] POV?

"Bills and coins now account for less than 5% of the money supply. The printing press is therefore nowadays an ineffective mean. Bernanke, a board member of the US central bank, has made the case that the US central bank (Fed) was ready to drop money from helicopters, finance on a large scale the federal deficits. However this policy has never been implemented so far on a large scale, probably because it is blatantly inflationist and because it hurts all those who profit from the lending business."

Is this not POV? It's confusing in any event. Can someone who knows more than me make an attempt to clean this up? Aplomado 01:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is POV. THis is basic facts. I could have written, the printing press and market operations are now ineffective means to boost money supply, I could have written, the central banks are now minor players in the money creation scheme, as soon as the credit bust happens, they will be for a while completely powerless, just as in the 30's, and precisely for the same reasons... I think may be the point should be spelled out more clearly. MOnetary authorities have not created enough money over the last 50 years and have prefered to manage through interest rates the rate of private money creation (credit), now they have turned themselves into minor money creators and will prove powerless when credit bust finally happens. Or sth like that. I'll work on sth better some time.

[edit] Edits to 'Effects of Deflation' section

March 5, 2006: The original intent of my edit today was to correct this run-on sentence in the 4th paragraph of the 'Effects of Deflation' section:

Improving production lowers the price of goods, and population growth is faster than a slowly-growing money supply, from mining precious metals, means that there is less and less hard currency per person.

However, as I got into the task of editting, I recognized another problem with that paragraph: It conflated two independent causes of deflation. Specifically, it claimed (in the context of a hard-currency economy) that deflation requires "reduction in money stock per person" to be simultaneously "greater than the reduction in prices" brought on by improved production efficiencies. This is demonstrably wrong. A reduction in per-capita money supply does not have to be greater than a concomitant reduction in prices. A reduction in the per-capita money supply is deflationary. A reduction in prices is also deflationary. Ergo, a simultaneous reduction in both is always deflationary, regardless of which one is greater in magnitude at the time. It's only when one of these two deflationary drivers is running counter to the other, that the positive driver must yield a greater effect than the negative one. However, in the original sentence quoted, the example given was for the case where then two effects are running complementarily, rather than counter to each other.

Regardless, I thought it beneficial to give each of these two deflationary drivers their own paragraphs, which I have done. I also separated the anecdote about the 19th century into its own paragraph, and expanded upon it.

--Mephist0 19:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This may be to simple..

If deflation is happening and the goverment wants to stop it can't they just print more money?

Yes, one could do that, although in the past printing money is typically more dangerous (i.e. volatile) than market operations. Someone asked my econ prof this. Fephisto 02:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No they can't because : Government (public) money creation is very small relative to banks and market (private) money creation. RIght now less than 5% of money supply is made out of central bank money. One can not overnight replace private money by public money, generally private agents resent this as spoilation. Please realise that printing or market operations are included in my remark, both are ways to inject public money in the economy. The problem we face right now is that the ratio of public/private money has never been so small ...

[edit] Kramer

Please explain why you're reverting. Fephisto 05:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit falsely says the following -
  1. A very serious deflationary spiral as opposed to The deflationary spiral - a deflationary spiral is the same as a hyperinflationary spiral. There is no inflationary spiral.
  2. You remove "modern" from "modern credit based economies." Modern is important to distinguish.
  3. You add fiat to unstable currency economies - this is not accurate.
  4. You state that economists believe deflation is self curing - this is not true.

In summary, you are editing the article to reflect your minority POV. Stop. JBKramer 06:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is possible that I'm confusing POV with mPOV, I've been around mostly Austrian Economists lately. Allow me to say the following in defense, however:

  1. Yes, piont taken.
  2. As opposed to pre-modern credit-based economies?
  3. For two reasons: 1)nothing stops the government from printing 2)I lose half of my money's value throughout the course of my lifetime.
  4. Throughout deflation, saving occurs, and there is a point where prices have fallen enough that re-encourages consumer spending.

Fephisto 02:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insane economists

No sane economists believes that money authorities control the pace of money creation. Money creation is in private hands now, it's the job of banks and since deregulation of the 80's increasingly in those of the financial markets. So I added the banks.

It is true however that some insane economists adopt as a gross simplification the hypothesis that money authorities control the money supply. However no central bank has ever done it. The history is full of market events driving central banks into reactions that some years later have some effect on the mood of the market. I've never heard of a country with free banking where money supply was in anyways under the control of central banks. So I added banks in the definition section.

The sooner we get the insane economists out of the profession, the better. This is a POV.

I added a line on the neoclassical school, if any turns up, he might try to say what his school has to say about something that happens in the real world and not in its perfect models.

[edit] Modified version

The modified version appears to put far too much focus on fringe economic theories. What specific changes need to be made from the longstanding version of the article? JBKramer 16:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The longstanding version is what I am reverting to; the version you're reverting to removes too much detail and example in order to further inform about deflation, and actually incorrectly describes what deflation truly is. 81.117.200.27 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Please seek consensus for your changes. Thanks. JBKramer 17:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you seek consensus for your reverts? From what I see, I am reverting the edits of one person, which has been reverted by others. 81.117.200.27 17:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that Sterling and myself are in strong agreement, and only you, Ruy, are not. JBKramer 17:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Who is Ruy? Furthermore, Sterling's edits to this article were unproductive as well. Why do you agree with Sterling? The fact that he warps the definition of deflation into something it's not? 81.117.200.27 17:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Which of his edits do you take issue with? JBKramer 18:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, JBKramer, I believe using the term "liar" consists of a personal attack. Please stop. Anyway, to get to the point, Deflation is the general act of ad hibinum reduction in economic cashflow, not what the article you rv to says, but the previous longstanding version did, which you constantly neglect to review since you're apparently targeting my good faith edits. 81.117.200.27 18:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Please cite a reliable source. JBKramer 18:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm reverting to the previously longstanding version. It's actually up to you to cite a source. What do you even know about deflation? 81.117.200.27 18:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
What specific edit do you have a problem with? JBKramer 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I have issues with you reverting blindly because you have a buddy that you happen to agree with. 81.117.200.27 17:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war

Gentlemen,

It should be clear to everyone this edit war is unproductive and not converging toward consensus. Several of you are already in violation of the three revert rule literally as well as in spirit, which "entitles" you to an introductory 24 hour editing block. It behooves you to quickly find the key points of the disagreement and debate those. As an observer, I would expect the winner to incorporate the greatest number of relevant citations.

In the meantime, I recommend the article remain unaltered by the factions. The present version of the article (which contains a Keynesian economics section) seems like it should stand for now. Whether he was right or wrong, certainly John Maynard Keynes was (and is) a major force of the theoretical economic landscape and shouldn't be omitted. — EncMstr 18:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The article in it's current state fails to accuratly reflect what deflation is, resorting instead to a fringe-economics focus. Keyne's views are included in the non-Ruy version, in lines that begin "Keynesians insist on the distinction between consuming goods and producing goods, and less often between exogeneous and endogeneous money supply," among others. JBKramer 18:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Clearly there is disagreement on the proper content of the article. I overlooked the Keynes section, mostly because it wasn't in the place I anticipated from the structure of the article. I expect the resolved article to contain something like
Deflation is blah, blah, blah, though others believe that deflation is blah, blah, blah.
Then the reader can follow the citations accompanying each and decide for themself. The article must be WP:NPOV, which usually means all significant points of view are presented. What is significant? Those with links to credible sources. — EncMstr 18:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I expect users to follow basic concepts such as wikipolicy and the relevant laws of the jurisdictions they reside in There isn't a controversy here, there is an attack by a well known troll. While the article is crying out for improvement, as long as we are dealing with a troll attack, it isn't going to be possible to do so much as spell check - the Ray Lopez outbreak reverted even such things as correcting a typographical error. Your failure to adequeately research before lecturing other people on wikipolicy is offensive and insulting. Stirling Newberry 04:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Perhaps those that don't like the information Sterling cut (I agree with him 100%) should find reliable (not fringe) citations for the information they want reincluded? JBKramer 18:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
All of my tags were removed by the anonymous editor again. JBKramer 12:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted back to the tags. If the anyonmous editor could provide sources where requested, we could move on to the NPOV violations. Otherwise, I will request adminstrative intervention. JBKramer 16:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there an estiamted time that it will take you to provide sources, anonymous editor? JBKramer 16:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. There's one there right now. You should look at the article more closely, or get thicker glasses. 81.117.200.27 16:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Please provide sources for the statements I have requested sources for. Thanks. JBKramer 16:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I have, look in the article 81.117.200.27 16:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
None of your edits has provided a source for the two statements I am disputing. Please provide a source for "In the ideal perfect market world, no deflation can happen because monetary authorities control money creation and prices are allowed to fluctuate." and "Austrians believe in preventive action, while they blame the government to allow booms, they believe busts are the price to be paid for past foolishness." Thank you. JBKramer 16:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The citations were provided. Clear your cache. 81.117.200.27 17:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you post a diff? Thanks. JBKramer 17:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[file:///c:/Program%20Files/Internet%20Explorer/Custom] There you go. 81.117.200.27 17:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, but I am requesting a diff of you providing the sources. Could you provide that? Thanks. JBKramer 17:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I just did! They are in the article and right above you. Please pay attention. 81.117.200.27 17:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
My arrogance must have blinded me. Can you please provide them here, on the talk page? Thanks! JBKramer 17:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[1] 81.117.200.27 17:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Please provide a citation for the statement "In the ideal perfect market world, no deflation can happen because monetary authorities control money creation and prices are allowed to fluctuate." Thank you. JBKramer 17:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[2] 81.117.200.27 17:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] small error

The first paragraph of the definition section says "This generally also means that wages in nominal amounts." I'm guessing that it is missing the word decrease somewhere, but I don't know anything about this stuff so I don't want to guess. Can someone who knows a thing or two fix it?

-- Zarvok | Talk 21:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/f/Talk%7EDeflation_%28economics%29_18cf.html"