Talk:inflation

Dispute over definition

Somebody keeps changing the meaning of this to a increase in the amount of money in circulation. Please check any English dictionary in not one of them does it mean that. — This unsigned comment was added by Allansoulmond (talk • contribs) at 02:50, 15 June 2008.

Indeed it does in a strictly economic sense. On the other hand, you're right because if it's "misunderstood" as the effect of that then that's just as valid a definition. I think this does need to be handled better than either proposed wording, possibly even considering two definition lines, one for the strictly economic increase in money supply, the other for the devaluation of currency and increase in prices normally associated with it. But these are so closely linked that it would make more sense to mention it all in the same definition line.

In any case, the block was not for contesting the definition, but for copyright violation. I'm not sure it's such a big deal with so common and straightforward a definition, but it's always better to use your own wording. DAVilla 05:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You might be unaware of where the link you posted gets its information from and not one of them is a English dictionary in the true sense of the word. Please also remember this site is meant to be a dictionary not a bulletin board for people opinions, there are many thousands of things that can cause inflation, the reason of a increased supply of money is highly debatable and if you look around the world there are many examples where increased money supply has not caused inflation. As for copyright there is no copyright on the meaning of a word and no copyright on the English language, English law prevents people or companies from claiming copyright on it. — This unsigned comment was added by Allansoulmond (talk • contribs) at 06:18, 16 June 2008.

Random House and American Heritage aren't dictionaries? Even Merriam-Webster, which more or less agrees with you, at least comments on the money supply. Indeed, this is not a board for opinions, so if you have a better source then please name it.

I'm inclined to agree with you at least on a single short definition, but as I am not a lawyer, you're more than welcome to take your latter arguments to someone else. What I know is that we block if something is copied, and what I'm telling you is that the revert had little or nothing to do with whether the definition is correct.

If in modern economics the size of the money supply is not so relevant, perhaps the best option would be to use a definition similar to yours, and to comment on the money supply in the etymology, which explains the origin. Or maybe Conrad's definition should be marked as obsolete. But I'd wish to know a lot more about the word and its history before trying to make that determination. DAVilla 20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Allansoulmond on this; every dictionary linked from this talk-page agrees that (deprecated template usage) inflation refers to the increase in prices or the decrease in purchasing power. Most of the dictionaries do mention the money supply, but only as a cause or putative cause of inflation, not as a referent of the word (deprecated template usage) inflation itself. (Am I missing something? I see that the entry has changed significantly in recent days, so maybe I'm missing some needed context for this discussion.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the 1913 version of the Websters Dictionary, I see the definition of inflation is "Undue expansion or increase, from overissue; -- said of currency." So at some point between 1913 and today, the definition changed. That fact probably needs to be included. http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=inflation

The OEtyD has this to say. I think the original inflation metaphor had to do with pumping money, whether paper or specie, (the fluid) into the economy (the bladder), of which there was plenty of experience in Jacksonian times in the US, when there was great debate about the role of federal government in regulating the supply of money. The two economic dictionaries I have consulted don't make the money supply part of the definition of inflation. The New Palgrave's doesn't seem to have an article on Inflation per se. But their article on "Price Level" begins: "Until the end of the nineteenth century, it may be said that the quantity theory was everybody's theory of money and prices."

My conclusion: Etymologically there is reason to somehow include the money supply in the entry. DCDuring TALK 23:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Random House and American Heritage aren't dictionaries? They are dictionaries but not are not English dictionaries, I did post a link to The Oxford dictionary but it got removed, I think most people would agree that both the Oxford and the Cambridge Dictionaries are the the most respected authorities on the English language there is, and never of them say anything about inflation being the amount of money in circulation.

I'm not sure what the objection is. We often include dated definitions, which would be so labeled, but that wouldn't be the only way to include the metaphor. Conceivably it could go in the etymology or in a usage example or citation to illustrate the contrasting ways the term is used and has been used. The old Webster definition includes the money supply as an illustration of the use of a general sense of inflation. DCDuring TALK 01:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

hesiflation

Probably not CFI-attestable, but Henry H. Fowler (1908–2000), U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, once spoke of "hesiflation" (hesitation/inflation?). I'm too dumb about economics to know what it means. Equinox ◑ 20:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)