Talk:2021–2023 inflation surge

Article name
The article is currently named "2021–2023 inflation" after this edit moved it from "2021–2022 inflation surge". First, simply calling the article 'inflation' is confusing as it makes little grammatical sense and something I don't believe any other article covering periods of inflation on Wikipedia is called. Second, a question remains on what years should be included in the title: worldwide inflation peaked in 2022 and has steadily decreased ever since but inflation is still higher than average even into 2024. I am not officially proposing any alternative, but I would like to know what other editors think.

Personally, I have no issue re-adding 'surge' to the title as it was a surge which ultimately began to subside in 2023. Other names could be 'period of inflation' or something similar as brought up in the last discussion of the topic in August 2023 here. On this point the WP:COMMONNAME in sources would be useful. Yeoutie (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The WP:COMMONNAME would be "Bidenflation" -- which is actually a misnomer given that the cause was COVID policy under Trump that idled workers and disrupted supply chains.
 * I think "2021 inflation surge" would be the most appropriate, even though the peak was in 2022. Most of the surging part occurred during 2021. The reality is we'll probably see "above normal" inflation for many years to come. So would we update the title every year?
 * In the end, the complexities of the data (surge, peak, subsiding, persistence) can be borne out in the article body. We shouldn't try to explain the whole thing in the title. Michaelmalak (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are many sources talking about inflationary events NOT in 2021; like inflation in 2022 and 2023 and still now in 2024, so I think it should at least be named "2021-2024 inflation", and can be renamed every year as long as the occurring inflation is significant enough to be talked about in the media as a problem (unlike the two decades before COVID). --- Avatar317 (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree that 'surge' should be added to the title. SiennaVue (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we should limit this to 2021-2023 and start new articles if further crises develop or there is an interest in a series of inflation articles, one for each year or time division. I support '2021–2023 inflation surge'. It's direct to the subject of the article. Stick to the subject and not get diluted. If we were doing a series of inflation articles every year, then I would leave out surge. Alaney2k (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Naming an end year is like trying to predict the stock market. The surge will end when inflation drops consistently below 3%, and we don't know when that will be.
 * Here's another suggested title: Post-COVID Inflation Surge. Michaelmalak (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with the renaming the article to '2021-2023 inflation surge'. Not only is it direct to the subject of the article, but also it serves as a reminder for how quickly the event in question was, from the sharp inflationary rise in late 2021 to early 2022, and the subsequent drop to roughly below 3% in mid-2023 (see my latest edit showing the most recent Feb. 2024 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics showing U.S. inflation rate dropping to roughly 3%).  The "surge" aspect of the title denotes what was truly a remarkable event not just in the United States, but worldwide, caused largely of course by the rippling effect of the pandemic, which arguably ended in May 2023 when the WHO discontinued public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC).  SiennaVue (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * CPI has never fallen below 3% after 2021 We are still feeling the effects of the pandemic and response. And Michaelmalak (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Backing you up with some AP and PBS articles noting that inflation remains an issue. Please note that the AP is referring to it as 'stubbornly high inflation':    .  Fephisto (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with both of you. And I think a critical distinction must be made between the actual inflation rate, which has in fact decreased, and the result of being left with high prices.  Indeed, they can be mutually exclusive, and frustratingly so.  While the inflation rate may have slowed, it is still increasing while we are still stuck with astronomically high prices across most goods and services which unfortunately are likely here to stay.  Perhaps this distinction can be incorporated somewhere in the article. SiennaVue (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 25 March 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to 2021-2023 inflation surge. There is a consensus to move, with a rough consensus on 2021-2023 inflation surge as alternatively suggested. – robertsky (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: Moved to 2021–2023 inflation surge due to the dash. – robertsky (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

2021–2023 inflation → Inflation following the COVID-19 pandemic – "2021–2023" is no longer accurate. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. A reasonable name IMO. Will wait to let others chime in. Michaelmalak (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly Oppose. I sympathize with the nominator and agree that the current article name is too vague and rather odd, however the proposed name is arguably worse in terms of ambiguity and seems like a new article in in of itself. EVaDiSh (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Inflation is not a global constant. Some countries may stabilize their inflation rate before others. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support – It is a phenomenon that continues as a result of the pandemic, not limited to 2021-2023. Svartner (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – It is a better name than the current one, since we still have remaining higher than "normal" or "desired" inflation, and it started because of COVID related events. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose – I agree we need to rename the article, but the new name suggested here is unwieldy. Anyone with an idea for a shorter name? Northern Moonlight 17:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * how about 2021-2024 global inflation episode? soibangla (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This or also perhaps renaming it to 2021-2023 inflation surge? SiennaVue (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Post-COVID-19 pandemic inflation? BD2412  T 02:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: there is a consensus to move, however relisting to see if there are any other suitable alternative titles. – robertsky (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose, associates inflation with just one of its several causes. Dekimasu よ! 19:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article should be renamed "2021-2023 inflation surge."  The inflation rate has declined since 2023 and 'surge' denotes the drastic rate at which the global economy experienced rapid price increases in a relatively short period of time.  The title also reflects the original title of the article (excluding year changes) that was maintained for two years.  Please let me know your thoughts below.  Ideally would like to have a consensus soon. SiennaVue (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed title; support alternative title - first of all, the inflation occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, albeit after arguable the worst part. But "after COVID" or "post-COVID" is still inaccurate. It would also be probably too much of a generalization to say all of the inflation can be attributed to the pandemic. For example, some economists thing that some of the inflation can be attributed to bad monetary policy in response to the pandemic; if so, that would be human error and not inherently a result of the pandemic. I suggest something like "2021-2023 inflation surge" or "Early 2020s inflation surge" if the inflation episode has been declared over. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "Inflation Surge (2021 start)"? Michaelmalak (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2021–2023?
The inflation surge is still ongoing. The article title should be updated to “2021–2024 inflation surge.” PencilSticks0823 (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * the surge ended in June 2022 when the inflation rate peaked at 9.0%
 * the inflation rate has since declined and is now 61% below that peak
 * inflation remains elevated at 3.5%, compared to the pre-surge all-time historical average of 3.4%, though well above the pre-surge 20-year average of 2.1%
 * so we still have an anomalous inflation episode, but the surge is well behind us
 * https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1mIhP soibangla (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * January 2023 inflation was 6%, so the notion that the surge ended in 2022 is absurd. Michaelmalak (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * in January 2023 the inflation rate was seven months into its downslope. we can't just select an arbitrary inflation level and deem it "surge-y," because who's to say 5% isn't surge-y? the surge peaked in June 2022, so that's when it ended, but inflation has since remained elevated soibangla (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * With such confusion ("surge" vs "surge-y") perhaps the word "wave" should be used instead. E.g. "Inflation wave beginning in 2021". Michaelmalak (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, I like that "wave"....we've had lots of disagreement over the proper article name, "inflation wave" is the best term I've heard so far. What we need is a "large-tent" type of phrase. --- Avatar317 (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't mind wave, as inflation swelled, crested and fell, but it's kinda odd for a title. I dunno, maybe it works soibangla (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some support in news articles for using the term "inflation wave" or "waves of inflation". Seems like a reasonable compromise. 71.11.5.2 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of recently added graphs
Can you please better articulate your complaints about these graphs and why you think they don't belong? I think they are a valuable addition to the article. 1) The M2 money supply and monthly federal spending graphs go back to the recession of 2008, so that is a comparison point, and these give a picture of the monetary and fiscal stimulus during each of these "recessions".

2) The inflation graph has all points mapped to Feb 2021, other than the home sales prices which start at Q1 2021, so likely an average of Q1.

Is there a way you could suggest to better present data like this? It is solidly sourced.

Can you offer some of your ideas about how/why to present this data? Thanks! --- Avatar317 (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * not only do the inflation indices not converge at 100, the chart isn't even of inflation, it is of CPI. monthly and quarterly values should not be mixed on the same x-axis such that they do not begin at exactly 100, or exactly 0. "close enough" is not good enough
 * there is no reason for M2 to be shown all the way back to 2008. it was steady for years before the pandemic, then it spiked, then it eased. that's the only time span needed to illustrate what happened. seven years, maybe, not 16. less is more.
 * sure, the charts are solidly sourced, the data are not wrong, but they are poorly presented. I implore the editor to up their game. soibangla (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You make a better one and show me how it is done. - Wikideas1 (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * maybe start here and fidget with it
 * then do a monthly chart titled "consumer price index," not inflation, so all the indices begin at exactly 100 in Feb 2021 soibangla (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * if you insist on mixing a quarterly home price index with the monthly CPI values on the same x-axis, you can use the quarterly average CPI for each of your items, though those values won't tie back to the monthly values people typically see, so better to just omit the quarterly home price index from the chart to avoid any confusion and stick exclusively with monthly values to ensure every value starts at 100. but converting everything to quarterly is one way to "tell the story" with a chart, and that's the objective, not to cram as much data as possible into one chart. FRED can do most of the heavy lifting for you. soibangla (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * moreover, the chart title says Inflation since January 2021
 * but it's not inflation, it's raw CPI, and if one examines the original data for the chart they will see that the base month, when the indices = 100, is actually February 2021, so the chart title should be CPI since February 2021. alternatively, it might be Change in price levels since February 2021, but it is not inflation.
 * I am not suggesting the editor is intentionally doing this, it's often just a misunderstanding, but I have seen people citing the current CPI of 119.3 compared to a 100.0 base in January 2021 to claim that we now have skyrocketing hyperinflation of 19.3% with no end in sight. again, many are just misunderstanding, but others are intentionally deceptive political operatives. it's 3.4%, as we know. so, it's important that the chart title be accurate. soibangla (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)