Talk:2021–2023 inflation surge/Archive 1

Comments about this new article
Good start, and good references so far. The article is ripe for expansion. But I don't think the title is accurate. "Crisis" seems overblown and dramatic, and I find only two or three articles referring to it that way. It's true that Biden himself said "I think it's the peak of the crisis," but most sources - including the articles currently cited in the article - are not calling it that. How about "2021 worldwide inflation"? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggested "2021 inflation surge", which is more in the camp of what sources are calling it, even though that might sound somewhat awkward. "Worldwide inflation" implies that inflation was not occurring prior to this for some time. I was actually concerned about the title myself; maybe we should consider renaming 2021 global energy crisis, too. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "surge" would be an improvement, and as you say it is more in line with what sources are calling it. It's also the word you used in the lead sentence. Some other term may eventually come to define it, but would you be OK with my changing it to "surge" for now? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * - yes, I'd be okay with that. In fact I wouldn't be opposed to boldly renaming. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. In this early stage of an article, it's not uncommon to have two or three bold moves before the best title chooses itself. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

charts
I suggest the first chart be moved down in the article, the second chart include gasoline rather than M2, and the second and third chart be scaled to 10 years, rather than 40-60, like this soibangla (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

background and causes
While there is no unanimous agreement by economists as to the exact cause of the inflation surge, there are several theories.

No, there was debate about whether inflation was transitory or persistent, but the cause was always clear: high demand, low supply.

Additionally, some economists cite the unprecedented level of spending from the passage of COVID-19 relief programs by the US Congress as a key factor for the inflation surge.

The provided source talks about Republicans, not economists. This is a political argument.

At this point the lead seems adequate with a rather weak Background section, so I am removing the later until/unless someone can do a better job with it. soibangla (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I suggest to structure causes to remove source of the argument altogether.
 * The universally accepted cause of inflation is high demand / low supply, but they're only high or low in relation to each other. The whole argument whether its "too much money" or "too little supply" is misconstrued: too much or too little can only be defined by comparison with the other side.
 * Given a lot of coverage in sources, but little research available so far that would cover current events, my feel is the best way to present is by structuring causes without comparing them:
 * Causes
 * Supply side
 * energy costs growth - describe what was happening before Russian invasion and after
 * supply problems due COVID
 * food price growth
 * Demand side
 * stimulus
 * spending of bank savings coming from reduced consumer spending during COVID
 * monetary policies - all historical Fed rate changes, related policy-based reasons
 * etc
 * The each section would include reasons for each of the causes, any reliable quantification if available.
 * However, I'd be against saying what is a "principal" cause of inflation is or adding estimates for relative impact of different causes to the article, unless its a claim in a peer-reviewed scholarly source. Another reason for not evaluating causes at this stage is that event a perfect assessment will age extremely fast: think what a difference between impact of the energy&food components in Jan'22 before the Russian invasion, and say by May'22 could be - and what it could become by October-November.
 * Perhaps, a separate section could be created for politicians'/Fed/Treasury statements to demonstrate historical and current attitudes, but I don't see how the comparisons between causes could be reliable in any other context.
 * PaulT2022 (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

table
I'd like to add this table just below the first chart in the article. I've exhausted my patience finding an "align right" parameter in H:TABLE. Does anyone know how to do that? Thank you.

soibangla (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

US-centric
I have placed the "Globalize" tag on this article. I have two suggestions as possible remedies: move this page to 2021-2022 United States inflation surge or expand this to include other country's issues with inflation. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Support move, there's a UK cost of living crisis article for example, and inflation is specific to a country/currency. Most (all?) of the sources in this article are specific to the US.
 * There are already existing articles for global phenomena that affected simultaneous inflation in different countries 2021–2022 global energy crisis, 2021–2022 global supply chain crisis, 2020–present global chip shortage etc. PaulT2022 (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic should have its own section for this article because it served as a major contributor to the ongoing inflation surge, citing massive economic support packages. 9March2019 (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

new article time
folks, with the official US GDP report confirming that the US is in fact actively in a recession, it's time to create a new article which is linked heavily to this called '2022 Recession' StarkGaryen (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * the US is in fact actively in a recession is incorrect. soibangla (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of events is confusing
The opening line is, "In early 2021, a worldwide increase in inflation began." It immediately attributes this in part to Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, an entire year later. I get the point, that the invasion significantly worsened the increase, but to someone with very little knowledge of the topic, it might make less sense. 104.128.175.120 (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a good point. I came here to ask the same question.  The only way the citations made sense if it you said "by 2022, some thought that the primary cause had become"--so I tried to do that.  But yes, definitely, this should be doublechecked or possibly outright eliminated in the future.  Fephisto (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

BLP Violation?
How can there be a BLP violation in quoting Krugman's own article in which he says he was previously wrong? And So It (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is taken out of context and is UNDUE emphasis. The NY Times asked all its op ed writers to come up with a column about a time they said something that turned out to be incorrect. Nice gimmick for the paper, but if you read Krugman's discussion he does not reverse his view and is not saying the macro view we use to represent him in this article was incorrect. SPECIFICO talk 13:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it out of context? The sentence before is a 2021 NYT opinion article by Krugman saying inflation is transitory, the next one is that by 2022 inflation was still going on and then an NYT opinion article by Krugman saying he was wrong. What's the BLP issue? Be specific. And So It (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Effect of money printing
Nowhere in this article is there mention that too much money printing (i.e. QE and Treasury Issuance) was a primary driver of the inflation. See WSJ article [https://www.wsj.com/articles/powell-printing-money-supply-m2-raises-prices-level-inflation-demand-prediction-wage-stagnation-stagflation-federal-reserve-monetary-policy-11645630424 Jerome Powell Is Wrong. Printing Money Causes Inflation.]. There are many more high quality RS from quality experts who hold this as the primary cause (and the driver of the 2022-2021 increase in demand that further impacted the supply chain crisis). 78.18.244.36 (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to contribute. The article quality has been improving for some time now and seems set to improve, and complex multi-facetted issues like inflation should certainly discuss if money supply is a primary cause as no doubt some would hold this view. Xenmorpha (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried to include this. Please include more sources if you can, it would be much appreciated.  Fephisto (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to also add, I find it incredibly frustrating that other editors weren't on the ball with this one. This should have been a knock-out case of material to add to this article, and it is making it really difficult for me to maintain an Assume Good Faith attitude on this platform.  I can't believe this wasn't done sooner.  Fephisto (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Care to explain why the huge monetary stimulus of the Greenspan years and Bernancke years did not result in monster inflation? This point is not at all obvious, and a WSJ op ed is not really a top-level source on econcomics (as opposed to business news). If this issue concerns you, some additional research and input on the talk page would be very welcome and constructive and might even relieve some of your frustration. SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The WSJ Op-ed is by a prominent subject matter expert, an academic economist at a top-tier university. I'd be happy to explain to you, privately, why not all stimuli result in inflation, but it is irrelevant to this page - we quote reelable sources, and that is what they say. And So It (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not state the condensed newspaper writing of a single economist as fact in Wiki-voice. If you have sourced content to propose, there's no need to "explain privately" -- that would be part of the content discussion here. We represent the WP:WEIGHT of all mainstream reliable sources, we do not cherrypick a single such source. And for a topic in economics, there are academic and scientific publications that are to be preferred to whatever sells newspapers. SPECIFICO talk 13:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The additional sources recently added do not address the problem. The Northeastern cite is to a self-published essay or working paper of a faculty member. The two original cites were to the opinion of a single economist via news media. The article text should be developed with stronger references, and the citations really should not be needed in the lead once the article text is developed from a broader and stronger array of sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Monetary Policy Edits
Hi SPECIFICO. I hope you don't mind me addressing you directly, but you seem to have edited out a lot of what I previously added and will be putting back in shortly. Here are some of the reasons I added back a lot of what was edited out (if you happen to catch this within the day, please keep in mind that I'm posting this ahead of making the edits in the page, so I apologize if some of these items have not occurred yet):


 * Regarding the latter lines in the "Monetary Policy" section, two of these sources, and a lot of the verbage was lifted directly from the introduction of the Monetary Policy article. I saw you tag this specifically as "CE, OR, and SYNTH."  I must disagree given that I was under the understanding that these sources were already in the other Wikipedia article.  If not, then I would suggest you edit it out from that page as well.  I've tried rewriting it again, nonetheless, to try to hopefully strike some mutually agreeable ground.
 * Regarding the Nasdaq source, it was a reprint of a Reuters article (which is why I listed the publisher as Reuters). You could see this in the byline of the Nasdaq source.  However, to avoid argument, I found the original Reuters article and sourced that instead.  Even though we apparently seem to disagree that Nasdaq is reliable, I do hope we agree that Reuters is an acceptable source.
 * I missed which edit/for what reason the Johns Hopkins economists were edited out of the article entirely. I put them back in, making clear that it is due to those economists.  Please note that in doing so that I am simply following the guidelines of WP:RSOPINION by the letter, and therefore I am trying to act in good faith in doing so.  Given that they are respectable economists (Johns Hopkins) publishing in a reliable mainstream periodical (Wall Street Journal) I gather that this should check all of the boxes of RSOPINION policy.
 * I've gone through the Wikipedia library and the Federal Reserve working papers to add a few other sources. So, I hope we can find agreement there.

I hope this finds you well,

Fephisto (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't add them back after I have provided reasoned policy-based challenges to what I consider bad article content. And when you use content that appears on other pages, you still would need to establish appropriate WEIGHT and sourcing for the page to which you copy the content. I was not aware of the other page. "I must disagree", as you say, is not a good reason to edit war. Please observe WP:BRD rather than simly asserting that your view is correct. If you have restored the content and it still has the same issues unresolved, please remove it and provided detailed policy-based justification of your content proposal.  Working papers and other primary-sourced references, even by accredited academics, are not RS for articles on complex matters of science, social science, or other academic fields. SPECIFICO talk 00:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe I have duly noted my efforts above and in the edit history. Fephisto (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting your efforts is not what we do on this website. Please read WP:EW. You can be blocked or banned for disruptive editing. I have not reviewed your edits, and I don't know how many editors are watching this page, but you are quite mistaken in your view and in your refusal to collaborate. SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH and WP:OR
this edit] introduces WP:SYNTH and WP:OR commentary to the article text. If you believe that this content is relevant to the 2021-2022 surge, the article would need sources that explicitly make that comparison within a single source. Introducing a general comment about money and inflation, regardless of whether it represents a significant viewpoint related to the subject of a different article page, is SYNTH, and the content in this sentence is your commentary on the 2021-22 surge rather than a connection made by any Reliable Source. Please self revert and give a careful look at the two links to our No Original Research policy that I provided. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Without touching the SYNTH/OR argument (reliance on primary sources is a much bigger issue with the specific edit IMO), I think calling Monetarism a "One theory, voiced by three not widely known economists" is problematic, so I can see the reasoning behind Fephisto's edits.
 * What the beginning of the paragraph probably should be saying is something along the lines of "X and Y proposed a monetarist explanation for the inflation growth in the U.S." (sourced to Fortune and linked to Monetarism/Monetary policy/etc). Any missing details about the monetary theory itself could be added to the relevant article per WP:OR.
 * On an unrelated note, there's definitely a synth in combining sources talking about U.S. inflation with one about the Nigerian one and coalescing them into a worldwide explanation of inflation, which neither of them supports on its own. PaulT2022 (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The primary source problem, given it's a matter of judgment or opinion, is basically the same as the WEIGHT problem. Although it may well be the case that the editor who pushed that text subscribes to some version of 1970s-80s monetarist dogma, I'm not sure the policy remedy should be linked to Monetarism, which is not the same thing as Fed interest rate remedies or balance sheet management. "Monetarism" is not currently a dominant mainstream view among economists, so giving it UNDUE weight is a bit like putting vitamin supplements prominently in an article about influenza. SPECIFICO talk 18:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fortune, a secondary source, describes Hanke's view on causes as monetarist. PaulT2022 (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like sufficient reason to exclude that bit as an insignificant minority POV.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The effect of monetary policy on inflation Hanke discusses is not an "insignificant minority POV":
 * https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12845.htm
 * https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy
 * https://www.riksbank.se/en-gb/monetary-policy/what-is-monetary-policy/how-monetary-policy-affects-inflation/
 * https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/122214/how-does-monetary-policy-influence-inflation.asp
 * https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/monpol.htm
 * I endorse your efforts cleaning up this article, but in this case I'm afraid you're making a controversial conclusion that contradicts secondary coverage.
 * It should be discussed neutrally along the lines of the Fortune coverage - which does a good job balancing Hanke's views with the "Monetarism" is not currently a dominant mainstream view among economists. PaulT2022 (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Straw man. Nobody doubts the existence of monetary policy. Also, investopedia is not worth mentioning.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 08:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I got you now! The jump from causes to remedies was confusing, sorry. I'm in agreement that we can't say or imply that the raise of interest rates is intended to affect inflation by decreasing money supply. It would be unsourced and is not what policymakers say.
 * My argument was solely about the use of the "one theory, voiced by" formula in application to the discussion about the causes and the claim that increase in money supply could've been one of the factors that caused increase in inflation. This is an inappropriate editorialisation. The context, that the money supply as a cause of inflation has been a diminishing view amongst economists in the recent years, should be presented along the lines of how the Fed website does it: some economists... have argued that the money supply... determines the level of prices and inflation in the long run. &mdash; Over recent decades, however, the relationships between various measures of the money supply and variables such as GDP growth and inflation in the United States have been quite unstable. As a result, the importance of the money supply as a guide for the conduct of monetary policy in the United States has diminished over time. Not by persuasive writing. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Name Change of Article
The title “2021-22” inflation surge indicates the inflation has passed. Wouldn’t a more appropriate title be “ongoing” inflation surge or “2021-Present” Refsjjehhgshh (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The US June CPI report is out in 50 minutes. We're only halfway through 2022. A lot could happen in six months, especially since the Fed is expected to significantly tighten again in days. Let's wait. soibangla (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Inflation is high globally, and remains so. Even if it dissipates in Q3 2022, it would still mean that inflation being high is ongoing (2022 July). So I would vote yes if this is put to some vote. Xenmorpha (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to revisit this again since inflation is continuing, “ongoing” seems most appropriate Refsjjehhgshh (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Bad source
The source for the articles statement about Russias plan for a puppet government in Ukraine is based on a political and non neutral source.

I'm not denying this might be their plans, but there has to be a better source. Kepsalom (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing and balance
(Reply to the @SPECIFICO's post at WP:NPOV/N) I doubt that strong sourcing can be found as of now.

Inflation is a nation-/currency-wide phenomenon by definition; to the best of my understanding, there are no references in the article that would describe "worldwide increase in inflation", as the lead puts it. There's no such thing, because each currency supply is independent.

I'd expect publications describing the global inflation in 2021-2022 to appear at some point, but it seems that they're not there yet. I've only been able to find a single opinion piece: https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/return-global-inflation

In other words, it's a notability / original research issue (no sources are directly related to worldwide inflation growth - they're all about national inflation growth) rather than a question of balanced editing. --PaulT2022 (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Would you recommenf AfD? <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a move to an article about US inflation? Most of the references seem to be about US inflation and would be a shame to discard work of many editors. I don't think another article about US inflation exists?
 * Balance could be tricky though, and I don't believe there are reliable sources that would allow to assess weight of each component adequately. It changes month-to-month and the opinions tend to be politicised. One option could be to describe each inflation component independently, so that they don't compete with each other - see my comment in . --PaulT2022 (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Collapsed my argument that is now mostly out-of-date as sources about global inflation began to appear. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing for low interest rates
@SPECIFICO, your comment "Sourcing that details the views and statements of Summers and El Erian would be fine." in this deletion confused me. Why the referenced Fortune article is an inappropriate source for their views? Seems to be a reasonable secondary coverage linking to their op-eds in primary sources.

Also, why are you alleging that the part about non-US central banks would "elevate a hedge fund guy's opinion"? The opinion was presented in multiple sources without implying that it's controversial. Do you have a better source that would talk about this is a global sense without focusing solely on US Fed? PaulT2022 (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Elliot Mgt is not an economist. Of course their PR firm can get a "client letter" into the daily media. Often that's done as a regulation-compliant tactic to solicit fund inflows from people who agree with whatever forecast is in the letter. The 2 notable economists are referenced as a kind of byproduct or afterthought to associate them with the view of Elliot Mgt.  There are sources that report those two opinions in appropriate depth and detail, and not as him-too to a non-expert investor.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What sources do you have in mind? Also, what details my edit was missing? I found a few, but none seem to offer more depth (for example, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-02/el-erian-sees-danger-that-fed-will-do-too-little-on-inflation and https://fortune.com/2022/10/09/recession-fed-mistakes-interest-rates-economist-mohamed-el-erian/). PaulT2022 (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Propose rename of article to "2021 - present inflation surge" or similar
I haven't proposed a vote before nor really even an article name change, but I will say that inflation is an ongoing issue globally and I don't think it is wise to break from a roughly established tradition of keeping things as "to present" in name if something is not yet resolved or greatly diminished. This article's title--if going by tradition as to how other chronologically-important articles are titled--would indicate a resolution of inflation surge in 2022. This is not necessarily established as the case and inflationary pressures could continue to be well in effect and advancing into 2023 or beyond. An example of an article that is of chronological importance that uses the "to present" titling format is "2021 - present global energy crisis": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%93present_global_energy_crisis

Thus, I propose a renaming of this article to "2021 - present inflation surge". I welcome a vote and thoughts about this. Marsbound2024 (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, but I think it may make sense to postpone renaming until the end of the year in case if a common name for it appears in sources during the next two months. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with @PaulT2022. While it is certain inflation will continue at least into next year, best to wait but your proposal is valid @Marsbound2024. S0091 (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Impact of OPEC cuts
The OPEC cuts are simple fact. If you think part of that paragraph is inappropriate, you should remove the part with the problem, not the entire paragraph. That's how articles are improved. Please reinstate at least the simple opening fact. The reactions in the second part of the paragraph are not presented as fact. It is appropriate and common throughout Wikipedia to present -- with attribution -- the opinions or analysis of competent experts, as is done in the second part of the paragraph you have twice reverted, apparently based on a misunderstanding of policy.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @SPECIFICO I removed this because I couldn't find where sources report the impact of cuts on prices. They report:
 * 1. a factual statement of production cuts - which in my opinion is not related to the topic of the article unless a source connects it with oil prices
 * 2. uncertain prediction that this may ("Rising oil prices could mean inflation remains higher for longer") or may not ("But the impact of Wednesday’s cut, while a bullish signal for oil prices, may be limited as many smaller OPEC producers were struggling to meet previous production targets... Rystad Energy estimates that the global oil market will be oversupplied between now and the end of the year, dampening the effect of production cuts on prices.") affect prices in the future. Other sources talk about it similarly ("could" etc), without clearly attributing this opinion to any experts. Al Jazeera has a speculation that this will lead to the recovery (not growth as the edit claims), but it isn't attributed to any experts either and appears to be a journalist's speculation.
 * Please correct me if I'm wrong and missed something in the sources. I won't object to including this statement as long as opinions or analysis of competent experts exist, included and clearly attributed as such in the article text. I removed the entire paragraph as they weren't mentioned, and I couldn't find them in referenced sources.
 * Furthermore, this edit was juxtaposed to "Additionally, the price of Brent Crude Oil per barrel rose from $97.93 on February 25 to a high of $127.98 on March 8, this caused petrochemicals and other goods reliant on crude oil to rise in price as well.", which doesn't help as it omits the fact that the price fallen to $90 when the OPEC decision was made, making a false impression of prediction of continued growth above March highs (rather than recovery). PaulT2022 (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The sourcing is abundant that the cuts fueled concerns of an increased inflationary impact. See the google button for the mainstream narratives.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I could only find one expert opinion relating cuts to the inflation in all links from the first Google page. re-added attributed to this expert. Please expand with appropriate attribution if there's more. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Revised intro
May need a reference. I do not believe my interpretation of chronology is controversial. Jondvdsn1 (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning Price Gouging in the Lead
Price gouging has it own section on the page. Some commentary on this is likely useful and required in the lead.

The only direct opinion we have is of one economist. There are other sources in that section that state that some economists believe price gouging is happening.

When I first made the change to state that price gouging was a factor, it was immediatley reverted. Fine.

I opened up a discussion on the user page of the person who removed it, no response. I then again mention price gouging, this time with a qualifying statement ("according to some experts"), immediately reverted again by the same user, @Avatar317

I am now opening up the discussion here because nothing I restated in the lead is different than what is stated in the body of the article, and in two weeks they haven't resonded to my post on their talk page. My latest proposed sentence/change is posted below for reference.

It has been attributed to various causes, including pandemic-related economic dislocation, the fiscal and monetary stimuli provided in 2020 and 2021 by governments and central banks around the world in response to the pandemic, and according to some experts, price gouging. 71.11.5.2 (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Avatar317 has given good reasons both times. The first regarding a lack of sourcing for the sentence, and the second time they noted, "read the section about alleged price gouging and the quote in that section: "Blaming inflation on [corporate] greed is like blaming a plane crash on gravity.' It is technically correct, but it entirely misses the point."
 * Would you mind summarizing your responses here? Fephisto (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the proper page for a discussion on this topic is here, NOT on my Talk page. When we discuss here, other editors can see the discussion about this topic and weigh in.
 * Price gouging: I'm not opposed to a statement in the lead summarizing this section, but to simplistically put the words "price gouging" into the lead misleads readers into believing what is essentially misinformation about this topic, as shown by the quote I used in my edit summary, and the content of that section. I'll try to craft a summary of that section for the lead for us to discuss when I get a chance.  Feel free to suggest a section summary, and we can discuss it.  Thanks for discussing and not edit warring. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

recent addition to lead
, I find your addition to the lead to be a bit excessive and in my view most of it belongs in the body. In particular, the Wolfers/Furman comment is, in my view, somewhat ambiguous or an offhand quip, thus contestable, and so I'm not convinced the price gouging argument should hinge on it. I think a better approach would be a brief mention of price gouging in the lead, as I added earlier, with the current elaboration in the body. Beyond that, most of your addition should be relegated to the body, in my view. soibangla (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * As I said above, "to simplistically put the words "price gouging" into the lead misleads readers into believing what is essentially misinformation about this topic" If you read all the sources for that section, they all say that economists state that the "price gouging" argument is garbage.  I'll add quotes from the sources to the references for that section so other editors can more easily see that and make an attempt at reducing the length of my recently added statement in the lead without loosing that full meaning and understanding. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see they all say that economists state that the "price gouging" argument is garbage soibangla (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ok, "garbage" is loose wording...I re-worded the economists statement in that section to be more specific: "Several economists have stated that price gouging could be a minor contributor to continuing inflation, but it is not one of the major underlying causes that started this surge." based on those and other sources, which I should also add behind that statement. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I have more concerns about your framing/phrasing now than I did yesterday, but I don't have the time to address it right now; maybe I'll circle back to it later. soibangla (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to also summarize this in the lead? "UBS Global Wealth Management chief economist Paul Donovan said this has happened because post-pandemic household balance sheets have kept consumer spending demand strong enough to encourage producers to raise prices faster than costs, and because consumers have been gullible enough to find exaggerated narratives justifying such price hikes plausible." (Citing "Fed should make clear that rising profit margins are spurring inflation.") 2601:647:5701:39B0:D3EE:D997:5F1F:B222 (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Care with references
Looks like there's a lot of back-and-forth editing going on here, which is mostly healthy. But please do be careful with edits so that references are not damaged. This article is transcluded by a couple of articles, and that structure must be managed; and the articles own references shouldn't be partially deleted when they're still in use. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I apologize, . I will endeavor to be more careful. soibangla (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

no politics in lead, please
As one who is formally educated in economics, I consider myself an economics "purist" who eschews political influence, and I object to the lengthy competing political narratives in the lead by two editors. At most, keep it in the body, please. soibangla (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * as one of the two editors in question, I thought we had reached an amenable compromise. WP:LEAD does say that prominent controversies should be summarized in the introduction. How would you modify the paragraph to address your concerns instead of deleting it? Sandizer  (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree (and will admit) that both my added paragraph (and Sandizer's) were overly large in relation to the size of the price gouging section in the article. (lead is supposed to summarize the article and subject) I'm ok with leaving the lead as I just changed it to: "Debate arose over whether inflationary pressures were transitory or persistent, and whether price gouging was a factor." --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think that reflects the "prominent controversies" of the partisan debate? And now, the body says, "Several economists have stated that price gouging could be a minor contributor to continuing inflation" when the sources cited all say it has been more than half. Do you think an ordinary editor would see that as a good faith compromise? Sandizer  (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Then why isn't there any discussion in the lead about economists discussing whether the inflation was[/is] going to be transitory or not? Why did those edits even get deleted outside of the lead?  Even Krugman now discusses this issue with a lens solely in regards to interest rate policy, and yet every effort has been pushed to scrub that from the lead or put so many other things in the lead that that has gotten drowned out.  To quote:
 * "There’s a huge amount to say about inflation, but the 30,000-foot view goes like this: During the pandemic slump, governments gave households huge amounts of aid to maintain their incomes in the face of economic lockdowns. This meant that consumer purchasing power remained high despite a temporary reduction in productive capacity, causing a surge in prices — and leading central banks to hike rates to bring inflation back down."
 * Krugman's own words in the NYT. Fephisto (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

WSJ finally admits profit gouging
Work is kicking my ass this week, so someone else should add this: Sans paywall: https://archive.is/LzSfV

Also, why not show corporate profits and inflation in the same graph, i.e. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=134V3 ? Sandizer (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * WSJ: interesting find - final lines: "For Mr. Donovan at UBS, the period of profit-driven inflation might be coming to an end, in part because of rising public scrutiny. “We are probably at a point where companies may be reassessing whether to push this,” he said. “A reputation for being poor value for money stays for a long time.”
 * Second question: because that would be WP:SYNTH. Correlation is not causation, and showing a graph in a section titled: "profit gouging" would be LEADING THE READER to a conclusion not stated by the source (the Fed, in this case.) --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

NOTE: The WSJ article you linked never uses the words "price gouging". I wonder whether that is due to differing OPINIONS as to what is "reasonable and fair" - per Price gouging "Price gouging is the practice of increasing the prices of goods, services, or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair. Usually, this event occurs after a demand or supply shock."

Maybe people who like/agree with Capitalism consider this normal capitalism, (Wall Street Journal) and thereby do not label it as unreasonable, whereas those who dislike/disagree with Capitalism's tenets label any price increase above costs to be "unreasonable"..?

You stated you are trained in economics...is this a term normally used by economists, (it doesn't seem that way to me) or is it a generally derogatory term used by opponents of this behavior? (Your addition did fairly summarize the source, thanks!) --- Avatar317 (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the WSJ news division and editorial division often differ in their phrasing, but even here the news division uses "padding profits" (gouging) rather than some economic term like abnormal profit. I don't see it as a pro- vs. anti-capitalism argument. Capitalism is an imperfect system, sometimes markets malfunction, which is not to say that means other economic systems are better. I reject the argument of many that capitalism is always perfect and the government is always stupid and screws up everything (as many dubiously argued in 2008 to blame Fannie Mae and Barney Frank). It's no secret Big Oil makes big profits when crude prices are high, there's plenty of empirical evidence of it for generations, and if anything hammers consumers the worst, its high gas prices. Higher crude prices didn't force Big Oil to raise gas prices as high as they did, they chose to do that because profits had been low for many years, shareholders were clamoring for a return, and companies answer to their owners, not their customers. soibangla (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've realized that my aversion to the "price gouging" term is because *I* see it as an intentional slur against corporations/corporate behavior/capitalism, but I wondered whether that's my issue or what sources say...I've done some research and will do more and then post a new Talk page entry to start discussion about that.
 * I agree that Capitalism is an imperfect system (externalities seem to be an easy example) but my opinion is that even though many don't like capitalism doesn't mean that it doesn't function better than any alternatives we have yet tried or constructed (planned economies/communist economic systems). 2008 crisis: I think government regulation is very necessary to prevent fraud and monopolies, even though regulators missed the ratings agencies to CDO issuers "collusion" or COI that overrated CDOs, and the whole crisis was also enabled by the less regulated shadow banking system, so that was a complicated mess with lots of blame to go around, of which Fannie and Freddy deserved a small bit. --- Avatar317 (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sources, political bias in lead, and terminology
recently you have repeatedly deleted these sources:



You have also removed this source from Paul Donovan (economist) and its central idea from the third paragraph of the introduction:


 * 1) </li>

You claim that mass media sources quoting celebrity economist sound bites are superior to those independent professional government, corporate and academic practicing economists, because the newspaper and radio interviews are "secondary." However, WP:NEWSORG says that "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics."

Each time you've reverted, you've been changing the third paragraph of the introduction from this:


 * Some economists and policymakers have blamed inflation on price gouging, while others say corporations always try to maximize profits.[7][8][9] The confluence of several factors, including continuing strong consumer demand, misleading corporate narratives pertaining to increasing prices,[10] industry consolidation (leading to less competition), and supply chain constraints (preventing lower-priced-higher-volume competition), has allowed many companies to continue raising their prices without seeing reductions in volumes purchased, thereby leading to increased profits. Economists have noted that in the US as of February 2023, inflation has continued even though the Federal Reserve increased interest rates because consumers still have significantly larger average household savings than pre-pandemic, have seen wage increases, and have been willing to continue their spending even as prices have risen.[11]

To something like this most recent version:


 * In the United States, some Democratic politicians have blamed inflation on price gouging calling it "greedflation,"[7][8] but economists have noted that this explanation misses the point that companies are always charging as high a price as customers are willing to pay (market rate), and that continued consumer demand in spite of higher prices, (driven primarily by consumers' surplus cash from restrained spending early in the pandemic and/or cash received from government stimulus payments) has allowed many companies to continue raising their prices without seeing reductions in volumes purchased, leading to increased profits.[9][10][11][12]

There is absolutely no evidence that accusations of price gouging and windfall profiteering has been limited to "Democratic politicians," although it is quite true that Republican congresspeople have been uniformly taking the opposite side. The term "greedflation" is an infantilizing WP:NEOLOGISM and exceedingly rare to nonexistent compared to its synonyms profiteering (business) and price gouging, both before and after the pandemic. One of the sources you objected to and I agreed to remove, shows that the issue is international and not at all limited to US political parties.

Finally, in in each case when you've made those reversions, you've also changed the "Fiscal and monetary policy" section header to "Monetary policy" even though its section clearly discusses both, referring to pandemic stimuli occurring long before any interest rate or other monetary policy changes took place.

I believe these problems represent an unacceptable political bias as also evidenced by the issues other editors have raised about your changes on this talk page above, so I intend to revert your deletions again. Sandizer (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll just add/clarify that greedflation is the term I've seen more often regarding recent news, rather than price gouging. When I previously was looking for sources, greedflation showed far more relevant hits than price gouging. So while it may be a neologism, it seems to be the term predominantly used to discuss this issue. As such, it probably needs to be used in the article. 71.11.5.2 (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sandizer, I think a lot of these points are being overblown. @Avatar317 has been trying to make repeated attempts to point out the consensus of actual professional economists, as I have, and we've been repeatedly shot down.  There was quite an edit war to even get Johns Hopkins economists published in the WSJ because they were making supposedly "Republican" talking points, and even that got shaved down to a small one-paragraph statement through multiple abuses and rules lawyering of WP:SYNTH.  I agree that the "Lefist Democrat" talking point that was left is a bit too much and has unfortunately turned what should be a dry clear-cut case for expert economists into a partisan bickering match that we should avoid, and you make good points to try to avoid this.  On the other side, there does need to be some counterpoint and I think his point that there is a history of economists giving critique of the "greedflation" narrative is backed up by the other sources he's been consistently repeating (like the NPR story), and we should keep WP:NOTNP in mind.
 * Fephisto (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The key point that economists have repeatedly made regarding "greedflation" that this part of the total inflation is fundamentally driven by ONE factor, and that is consumers' continued spending. (willingness and ability to spend) Now, if their spending is enabled by decreasing their savings from record highs (which it currently is), rising wages (even though people may not understand that their wages grew less than price increases), or pschyological factors (I missed two years of vacation so I'm going on vacation now, no matter what it costs and no matter how much I put myself in debt), --these are SECONDARY factors: theories of WHY people are continuing to spend.  The "...consumers seem to be buying stories that seem to justify price increases,..." is another of these SECONDARY theoretical factors, attempting to explain WHY people spend.
 * The political left (many of whom demonize capitalism and for-profit companies) like to blame "evil" companies for "taking advantage" of consumers, when MAINSTREAM economists state that generating profit and even profiteering is a NORMAL part of the way capitalism functions, (like gravity in physics) whether or not some people view it (profiteering, and/or capitalism) as unethical. Muslims believe that charging interest on loans is unethical.  Economists say that companies' greater profits/iteering recently is merely ENABLED by consumers' willingness to spend, and would happen anytime consumers spend like this.
 * That said, the research has stated that LATELY, PART of the price increases have been because companies have been "riding this wave" of price inflation to higher profits, but even the originators of the "greedflation" hypothesis (see the NYT quote I included) say that this was not one of the initial causes of inflation.
 * The lead summarizes the ENTIRE inflation phenomenon, which has a multitude of factors: war in Ukraine causing reduced oil and wheat supplies with no corresponding reductions in demand, supply chain constraints, fiscal and monetary stimuli --those are already explained in the preceding paragraphs. And it IS the "Democratic politicians" before the Nov 2022 elections that have tried to blame the ENTIRE inflation on profiteering (and industry consolidation), ignoring the Ukraine war effect and the fiscal and monetary stimuli but there have been NO economists that have said that that explanation is valid for the ENTIRE inflation.
 * Maybe there is a way to add more nuance to the lead; I'm definitely open to suggestions on that. --- Avatar317 (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe there is a way to add more nuance to the lead; I'm definitely open to suggestions on that. --- Avatar317 (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Some quotes from: ]

Note that is Robert Reich, who is very strongly on the political left.--- Avatar317 (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * can you find any "Scholarly sources [or] high-quality non-scholarly sources" which agree with any of the celebrity economist soundbite news reports you are relying on, as per WP:NEWSORG? Is there any serious economic scholarship which doesn't say most of the post-pandemic inflation has been due to price gouging? Sandizer  (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to have trouble understanding, (or you don't WANT to understand) what the sources currently in the article say: that corporate profits are not the WHOLE story. You are demonstrating the problem with WP:PRIMARY sources: you cherry-picked three NON-peer reviewed studies, and you misinterpret them: from your first source:
 * News sources choose well known economists respected in their field to interview for a reason: they are understood to have a mastery of the field and can speak to what the general consensus of the field is. --- Avatar317 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that excerpt is still saying it's mostly profit taking, just with different motivations. Could you please answer the question, as raised by WP:NEWSORG? I feel it's very pertinent in this context. I'm not sure there are any peer reviewed sources on the topic yet, but the distinction in the policy is between news and scholarly sources. If your answer is that there aren't any scholarly sources saying most of the inflation was not due to profiteering, are you amenable to including the scholarly sources 1-3 above? Sandizer  (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the scholarly sources prominently and removed the factual dispute tag as a compromise proposal. Someone else deleted the third paragraph, and I propose we re-write it from scratch. What are the most important bullet points you think the third paragraph should include? Sandizer  (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is my proposal:
 * Economists have found evidence that corporate profiteering, also known as “greedflation,” contributed to more than half of the inflation after the COVID-19 pandemic. According to proponents of this view, large consolidated corporations have enough market power to raise prices substantially. While economists note corporations likely would have used such power before the pandemic, consumer willingness to pay higher prices during economic uncertainty and their susceptibility to misleading narratives justifying price increases have enabled inflationary price gouging. Left-leaning Democratic politicians in the US generally agree with the greedflation explanation, while Republicans generally argue that it misdiagnoses the underlying causes and that corporations always maximize profits when competition fails to prevent excessive price increases.
 * Sandizer (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would argue that instead of corporate profiteering & the Ukrainian war being two parts of a coherent "whole" explanation, they are just two nodes in a chain of events. It's true that in order to explain the series of events, both fiscal/monetary/Ukrainian war and corporate profiteering need to be explained, but I would agree that they are just two sides of the same coin. 74.99.162.75 (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

regarding : (1) what source(s) if any support the idea that price gouging was not a cause of the 2021-3 inflation? (2) why do you claim that increasing profits in anticipation of future cost increases is not price gouging? Sandizer (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Chronological order for the Price gouging, windfall profits, "greedflation" section
This section already has a 2023 SUB heading, and the rest of the sources in that paragraph you added the new content to are from 2022, May and June and to November. How does it make any sense to throw this NEW = 2023 information into the middle of that section? --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In my view, it is far less important when this research/reporting occurred than what it relates to, and it relates to price gouging under that subhead. Moving it to 2023 effectively buries important information from where the issue is being extensively covered. I note that you have been persistently opposed to taking gouging seriously, attributing it primarily to what Democratic politicians assert, and you and another editor have gone back and forth on this, but here we have solid economic research reported by a highly reliable source supporting a gouging hypothesis. I strongly believe it should remain where I placed it. soibangla (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you'd stop with the accusations: "you have been persistently opposed to taking gouging seriously," as my main issue with Sandizer's edits were what I perceived as their attempts to state in Wikivoice that price gouging was THE ENTIRE CAUSE, (or the most important cause) of inflation - which is what Democrats were saying, contrary to what economists were saying at that time (possibly a partial cause).
 * My point about chronological order is that we can explain how (even when Democrats were trying to blame ALL inflation on price gouging) that most economists said that it was maybe a small factor, but now in hindsight, many economists are saying it seems to have become a greater factor than first appeared. That is how science generally works when analyzing new situations.  Maybe we can move the "Oil companies" stuff elsewhere so that all the content under the "Price gouging,...." heading isn't interrupted with that content.  I had added a "2022" subheading just under the "Price gouging..." heading that Sandizer removed, this could be re-instated. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought you might object to that characterization, so I tried my best to not be offensive about it, I really don't want to make this personal, but I don't think there can be any doubt about your determination and stern tone about this for weeks. I stand by my position on this. What do others think? soibangla (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize for offending you. soibangla (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Maybe part of the problem here is that this inflation is clearly very multifaceted, and when we don't have any studies saying 41% is attributed to X, 12% Y, etc. and we talk loosely about X,Y,... we get into these disputes. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Better section heading needed
There are important economic issues raised in this section. Much of this content is well-documented and explained. But we should try to use language that reflects scientific analysis of economic processes rather than the terms used in casual public speech including by politicians and the media. "Price gouging" and "greedflation" are guaranteed to be read as partisan and inflammatory. "Windfall profits" is closer to neutral when documented -- essentially to refer to sudden enjoyment of economic rents -- but I'm not sure this is what happened in the period we're addressing. Maybe in some cases, but that kind of profit is more a result than a cause of supply disruptions.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. I was trying to figure out what term would be better, and I've been gradually re-reading the sources to try to see what terms they use. I've text-searched them, and:
 * In the main section (excluding the oil companies sub-section): 13 sources with only 4 using the term "price gouging" anywhere that is not a direct quote from a politician (Elizabeth Warren)
 * In the oil companies section: 7 sources, only 1 uses the term "price gouging"
 * To my understanding, windfall profits are more what the oil companies saw when supply decreased because of the embargo of Russian oil but demand remained, thereby driving up prices and giving them more profits.
 * But the other effect being talked about here is companies raising their prices because they can psychologically get away with it (without angering customers into switching brands or substituting products) because consumers are confused about how much prices "should" be going up, which is a different phenomenon. I haven't re-read the sources to come to a conclusion as to what terminology they generally use, though "padding profits" seems to come up frequently. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to reduce it to simply price gouging. soibangla (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Except by Wikipedia policy, you don't get to just choose which term you want to use, we are required to use the terms used by sources. Now if multiple sources use different terms in equal proportions, we still should say that "the phenomenon has been described as X, Y, and Z"; we don't get to choose to describe it as X because we like that description better than the others. --- Avatar317 (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's another one on Greedflation I can't do today because I'm swamped
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/30/business/economy/inflation-companies-profits-higher-prices.html

Sans paywall: https://archive.is/sAJf3

Sandizer (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * That source is interesting, but I want to note again that the term "price gouging" doesn't appear in that source. "Protecting Profits but Adding to Inflation ... Corporate profits have been bolstered ... cushioned corporate profits. ... expand margins" --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

disputed tag
, please provide examples of content that is factually disputed. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Probably safe to remove that template. It's been 1.5 months, and the section in question is well sourced, and presents arguments for both sides of the issue. 71.11.5.2 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Money supply paragraph
user:SPECIFICO removed, and I restored, the paragraph about Stanford and Johns Hopkins economists tying the surge to money supply. It is almost a tautology. The word "inflation" actually has two distinct meanings: monetary inflation and price inflation. To say that money supply increase is tied to monetary inflation is a first-class tautology. To claim that money supply increase is tied to price inflation is almost a tautology, given that price inflation is correlated on a delay basis with monetary inflation. I don't normally revert edits by registered users, but the removal struck me as egregious and almost a case of vandalism, though it is apparently a good faith edit. I would never double-revert (edit war), but I felt the paragraph should be maintained while we discuss here. Michaelmalak (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC) Forgot to mention: the paragraph had been there for nearly a year. Michaelmalak (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This kind of arithmetical Quantity Theory expanation of inflation is FRINGE. See whether there are recent peer-reviewed studies that would support that proposition with respect to recent economic experience? If your "tautology" is correct, why was there was no similar inflation after the 2007-8 Financial Crisis? Also, please present recent peer reviewed studies that support your claim that "price inflation is correlated on a delay basis with monetary inflation" -- which is false.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There was a bump in inflation during the Great Recession. Not as much. Somehow, from the 1990s through 2019, the economy was able to absorb the printed money -- probably absorbed by the stock market and corporate coffers. But the COVID stimulus was over the top and the economy could no longer absorb it.
 * But to get to the point, Stanford economists agreeing with Johns Hopkins economists does not strike me as "fringe", and even if it is, such voices deserve due weight in this article. The paragraph in question couches it as controversial (which IMO it shouldn't be controversial), so if it is fringe but prominent enough, then the paragraph is appropriate. Michaelmalak (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fringe newspaper column gets no WEIGHT. We need ·peer reviewed mainstream sources.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * John B. Taylor has [100,000 citations].
 * The topic is too new for a peer-reviewed paper.
 * Anyway, I'm waiting for consensus here (hear from other editors). If no one else speaks up, I'll attempt to edit the paragraph taking your concerns into account (or feel free to do so yourself). Michaelmalak (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Quantity Theory causal explanation s FRINGE, it has nothing to do with "too recent"<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize -- you're right. Austrian is considered "heterodox" (as cited in the lead of that article). I thought it was just another school of thought (I had never done a quantitative measure of published papers in the field before), and, more importantly, I thought there was nothing controversial about applying Econ 101 supply/demand to currency.
 * I've added the qualification that it comes from the Austrian school. Let me know if you think something more needs to be done.
 * It is important, though, that the view be represented somehow in the article. Michaelmalak (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see the article Quantity theory of money. Nowadays, it is mainly associated with monetarism, a mainstream school of thought. The word "Austrian" is not found in that article. StellarHalo (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you want? There are Johns Hopkins economists.  There are mainstream credited sources.  It's been trimmed down to only two paragraphs and even that's too much for you.  What do you want?  Fephisto (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's FRINGE and it needs to be removed. Put it in the Quantity Theory article, although it would also be UNDUE there, because editorials by not-very-notable analysts would have no significance there, where the history and criticism of this deprecated view are discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs) 15:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are going to claim an economic theory is FRINGE or deprecated within economics, you are going to have to prove it without using original research. The article Quantity theory of money does not say anything like that. If there is any fringe theory being given any weight in this article, that would be "greedflation". StellarHalo (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please -- we don't use WP articles as references. The Q theory page gives the history of this view, does provide rejections of it by a very diverse set of notable economists, and says nothing about the current inflation.
 * The view that the current inflation was caused by the Trump and Biden administration policies rests on the massive, unprecedented FISCAL stimulus that was deployed in the 2020-2021 period. Monetary expansion as stimulus ("quantitative easing") was deployed by the Federal Reserve Bank in the period after the 2007-8 financial crisis when the US Congress refused to authorize fiscal stimulus sufficient to the contraction. The content in question is very weakly sourced for subject matter on which there is abundant RS coverage of the views of notable economists, and it needs to be removed. If anyone has time and interest to develop content on the fiscal stimulus and studies of its effects, great -- but the bit about money autonomously entering the system and being the root cause of the current inflation is false, it's not a widely held or discussed view, and it is FRINGE.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 10:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue that the content in question should be removed because it is from only three people and thus UNDUE, that is fine. But claiming an entire economic theory is FRINGE and deprecated without providing evidence that this is how vast majority of mainstream economists view it is not going to help your case and only a distraction from the relevant discussion over whether or not other economists besides the three being cited have also came out in support of the claim that money supply increase contributed to the latest inflation. StellarHalo (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did state that it's undue WEIGHT, but its weight is vanishingly small in this case, and while all fringe is undue, not all undue is fringe -- so you're correct we needn't dwell on that. The mainstream criticism of the policies that may have contributed to the current inflation clearly are about the unprecedented multi-trillion-dollar fiscal stimulus, not about a generic Monetarist view which you do not believe is fringe in 2023. The cited authors are not authoritative voices on macroeconomic policy, monetary theory, business cycles, etc., and the Wall St. Journal publishes all sorts of opinion -- some of it by the most notable experts and much of it not.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I listened to the entire Taylor video again. Fails verification. Hanke, known primarily for his controversial Covid policy views, is not a notable monetary economics or macropolicy expert.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Time to wrap this up. "Monetarist" explanations of the origins of the recent inflation are not prominent in mainstream analysis and publications by notable economists. There are plenty of statements by respected figures that can be used to comment on policy issues both as to the origin and management of recent inflation. Those would be informative for our readers. They can be used to replace the current text, if anyone wishes to survey available sources. Any objections?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I object to completely eliminating "Monetarist", and I suspect the others would as well -- let us see. No objection, of course, to contextualizing it as an alternative opinion. Michaelmalak (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Per ONUS and NPOV, you will need to demonstrate that this is a widespread analysis of the 2021-2022 events. Please provide sources for that. And also per NPOV WEIGHT, you would need at the same time to craft a narrative that emphasizes the prevalent mainstream views, which are not the "monetarist" view, but rather various discussions of supply chain, labor market, and fiscal factors.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear on what you are saying. Are you saying/claiming that the ~$2.5 trillion in new QE (in addition to the ~$6T QE from 2008, never reeled back) done by the Fed (plus more from the EUCB, and other Central Banks) during COVID which many have attributed as the cause of the "Everything bubble" (huge run-up in stock prices and home prices) was not even a contributing factor in this inflation?   From the sources I've seen, the contention that QE and low interest rates CONTRIBUTED to inflation (not the sole cause) is not fringe.  But maybe you can provide sources proving me wrong? --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2020-21 stimulus was not QE as in 2009. It was fiscal stimulus distributed bt Treasury checks. Moreover, tying 2020-21 to the QE Fed asset purchases of the years following the Financial Crisis only highlights the fact that the 2009 & ff. money issuance did not cause the proportionate inflation OP asserts is a tautology. Better sourcing that would NPOV reflect mainstream views is needed.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * - You are simply wrong. It was fiscal AS WELL AS MONETARY.  See this graph of the Fed's balance sheet. In 2018, the Fed wanted to start rolling back its QE which had been CONTINUOUS since 2008-2009 but the markets dropped and Trump pressured for them not to do that, and they didn't because they still thought the economy was not strong enough.  Then in COVID they injected another ~2.5T into the markets.  If you search for QE and COVID you can learn more about this. --- Avatar317 (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we are getting far afield and talking past one another. Do you think the Fiscal and Monetary Policy section should start off telling our readers that "money printing" caused the inflation and base that content on an a random op-ed, later picked up by Fortune magazine? I do not. I think that misinforms our readers and the "money printing" thing, while the term is familiar from decades of overuse, conveys little substantive meaning to our readers and does not reflect mainstream discourse among 2023 economists. With only that one short paragraph the section's topic, do you think the current text is a good summary? I'm saying it's not. It's UNDUE, poorly sourced, and does not convey the central narratives among economists.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 11:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you'll review the top post by OP, I think you would agree it is predicated on a misunderstanding and vast oversimplification of the relationship and processes underlying money creation and inflation. Yes, much of the fiscal stimulus was funded by Fed asset purchases during the pandemic, and the Fed also extended huge credit to financial institutions during the 2020-21 period. We could go into some detail, properly framed and explained for the benefit of non-expert readers. What I am objecting to is OP's advocating content, which they believe is "a tautology" that increases in the (presumably M2) money stock are the inevitable and only cause of inflation. Among other things, this baselessly imputes causality, and it has been appropriated as a cartoonish political narrative about government spending and central banking.  But there are many valid sources that could be used to better inform our readers on this, including summaries at the fiscally conservative Peterson Institute and progressive-leaning Brookings Institution.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining, I see your points now. I agree that that section currently is poorly sourced and only "explains" one element of the current inflationary phenomenon.  What I'd opt is for us to find at least four high quality sources addressing this "Fiscal and Monetary stimulus" to REPLACE what is currently in this section.  It seems to be well documented in the press that the FISCAL stimulus (as well as pent-up unspent savings) has driven consumer demand based inflation on first goods (conflated with supply-chain issues) and later also services (conflated with labor shortage), and the Fed's MONETARY interest rate policy and QE for easy money drove housing price inflation.
 * How about we see what sources we can find, post them here (in Talk) and then work on crafting a more accurate and balanced section that addresses the nuance of which policy drove which inflation. Maybe if we first agree on good sources than editors can generate content from those. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's going to take some work to develop good content for this section. Unfortunately I don't have much time to devote to it right now, but I'd welcome your participation. Meanwhile, I think that section needs to be further trimmed to bare essentials. Incidentally, Prof. Hanke appears to have been out on a limb with respect to his other views on the pandemic response, e.g. here. Anyway, pleased to have met you Avatar317.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I also note that you reverted my removal of the text associating neo-Keynesian Prof. Taylor with this quantity theory bit, calling it "well sourced", when the CNBC quickie video of him is all about interest rate policy and does not verify that article text. I'd ask anyone advocating for this kind of content to be careful not to misrepresent the cited sources.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Debt monetization
user:SPECIFICO: The clause you removed "[stimulus] colloquially known as money printing" is a summary of the second paragraph of that other article. Is it your opinion that that article needs to be edited as well to remove that paragraph? Michaelmalak (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, no. Because that lead text in the Debt monetization article correctly frames it as pejoritive and colloquial. However, a very quick perusal of that article suggests to me it's a garbled mess that needs a complete overhaul.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The word "colloquial" was already there in the text you deleted. If the word "pejorative" is added, would you find that acceptable>? Michaelmalak (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's UNDUE and COATRACK and POV for this article topic. Why do you think this insertion of a bit of widely misunderstood popular jargon would be helpful for this page?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The main question is whether "stimulus" is the same as (or substantially came from) "debt monetization". If so, then presently this article is inconsistent with the Debt Monetization article. Michaelmalak (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, no it is not the same. I'm afraid you are just projecting a misunderstanding of a wide range of topics and issues in monetary economics. But at any rate, if you have concerns about that other page they shouldn't be presented on this page.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

did the surge end last year?
Should the title be changed to 2021–2022 inflation surge? soibangla (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. It appears to have ceased "surging" and either that change should be adopted or the word "surge" should be replaced or removed.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * No. In Jan 2023, inflation was still 6.4% -- higher than anytime between Desert Storm and COVID. [BLS table]
 * but it began abating in July 2022. it was still elevated in January but was no longer surging. it's now down 12 months straight. soibangla (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A "surge" is measured by the second derivative of the price index. By that measure, there's little question that the 2021-2022 surge is ended. Whether there is a second, 2023-?? surge will only be discovered later.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * cn on the second derivative. E.g. Uber surge-pricing -- we would say that the surge begins when the elevated prices begin and ends when the elevated pricing ends. Michaelmalak (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We could rename it to "2021-XXX high inflationary period"; XXX being "2023", or "onward", or completely rename it to "Post-COVID inflationary period" as I venture to guess it might be called 20 years in the future. --- Avatar317 (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

yeah I'm pretty sure the surge did not extend into 2023 and the title should be changed soibangla (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you going to provide a source for that? Don't want to get into OR.  Fephisto (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia consensus has made the determination of the duration in the title, but can anyone provide reliable sources there has been a surge continuing into this year, as there is now evidence of continuing disinflation leading to some deflation? soibangla (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I still !vote for "high inflationary period" since inflation is still above fed and others' targets. --- Avatar317 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * the historical average inflation rate over 910 months since January 1948 is 3.5%. it has been on a steady downward trajectory since June 2022, to 3.2% now. it may now be somewhat elevated over the Fed target range, but it is not highly elevated by either metric. the surge ended in June 2022 and I think the proper measure of relative elevation is the historical average rather than the Fed target range.
 * https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1bLom soibangla (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * All the sources disagree with you, since they all say that inflation is higher than the target, and it continues to make the news. I haven't seen a single source talk about how inflation is now considered a non-issue because it is at "historical" average (which includes periods of high inflation). --- Avatar317 (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * please cite sources for All the sources disagree with you soibangla (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Assuming inflation remains elevated, is that the same as a continuing surge? soibangla (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Egg price rigging conspiracy verdict
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/kraft-others-seek-damages-after-winning-us-egg-pricing-verdict-2023-11-22/

Not sure how to incorporate this, but eggs were clear outliers during the surge. Sandizer (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Institute for Public Policy Research says greedflation was and is real
The Institute for Public Policy Research, a UK think tank, says:
 * "market power by some corporations and in some sectors – including temporary market power emerging in the aftermath of the pandemic – amplified inflation.... Market power wielded by dominant firms... makes supply chains less robust, causes price signals to fail, and leads to macroeconomic tools being less effective at fighting inflation than they would otherwise be.... there is a need for a global approach towards taxing excess profits. The Economist magazine estimates these to be at $4 trillion (Economist 2023). According to an IMF working paper (Hebous et al 2022), the potential revenue from taxing excess profits globally could be $100 billion, a 4 per cent increase of global tax revenue."

I'm looking at Figure 3.3 on p. 21 for potential inclusion but wanted to run this by here in case anyone thinks the source is unreliable or otherwise objectionable. Sandizer (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Anything that includes the term "excess profits" is dubious and not mainstream description. That is a normative term.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Both of the sources cited there provide their own definition, but unfortunately they look pretty different to me. Economist 2023:
 * "The Economist has come up with a crude estimate of “excess” profits for the world’s 3,000 largest listed companies by market value (excluding financial firms). Using reported figures from Bloomberg we calculate a firm’s return on invested capital above a hurdle rate of 10% (excluding goodwill and treating research and development, r&d, as an asset with a ten-year lifespan). This is the rate of return one might expect in a competitive market. In the past year excess profits reached $4trn, or nearly 4% of global gdp...."
 * And Hebous et al 2022:
 * "Here, the concept of excess profit is generally equivalent to economic rent, defined as returns in excess of the opportunity cost of the investment. In this sense, it is equivalent to returns over and above the risk-adjusted ‘normal’ returns."
 * On the other hand, the Results discussion of Figure 6 provides a range inclusive of the Economist number. Can we use "windfall" or should we just leave the prescription out? Sandizer  (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Think tanks are NOT Reliable Sources WP:RS nor Independent Sources WP:IS. --- Avatar317 (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that at WP:RSP there are no think-tanks listed; that's because they fall under Self-Published Sources WP:SPS. Biased sources like think-tanks are NOT academic sources. Their goal is to advocate for their policy positions, and they do this by generating and publishing "research" which supports their positions. They don't objectively report on a situation; they publish only information/research which supports their position(s); they'll never publish research with findings contrary to their policy position; using such sources DIRECTLY risks UNDUEly WP:UNDUE representing their positions in OPINION situations, rather than taking their position in proper balance with others as presented by Independent Sources WP:IS. And they are practically never valid for statements of fact about causes they advocate for or against; it doesn't matter what political lean they have, this is true for conservative as well as liberal think-tanks. --- Avatar317 (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any objections to including the general point about windfall profits obtained through market power in the Economist and IMF sources? How about the prescription for taxation in the IMF source? Sandizer  (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent reversions and NYT source addition
The two sources you added which talk about Trump's COVID stimuluses are irrelevant to this article, because they predate the inflation issue that this article talks about; that is what I meant by Original Research. Those aren't needed anyhow because the NYT says:.

The other change I made was to modify the statement to what the NYT said, supported by this NYT quote: (my bolding) --- Avatar317 (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * off the top, I find it difficult to reconcile because they predate the inflation issue with trillions of dollars of pandemic spending signed by Mr. Trump in 2020 ending in December and a decline in federal spending from the height of the Covid-19 pandemic which was in 2020. It was at the beginning perhaps, but that’s not the story right now. We cannot assume the surge was caused strictly by concurrent events, but rather might have been precipitated by events of months earlier.
 * nearly $5 trillion in 2020, in fact. the Republican argument is, of course, based more in politics than in economics, and their assertion must not stand unanswered in an economics article. Everything you cite after Instead, Mr. Powell... is consistent with my edit. soibangla (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In this vein, the wonder is that the unprecedented cash spending in 2020 cannot be demonstrated to have caused any of the inflation, let alone inflation at the catastrophic runaway levels that have for years been predicted by the politicized academic economists of the mainstream in partnership with the Republican party. At any rate, I agree we need to make the content clear that there are lags and that 2021-2 was about 2020, not something that happened spontaneously and immediately in 2021.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have made a few changes to try to clarify this. Hopefully this is better.
 * It would be more constructive if rather than reverting my CHANGES to your ADDITION in their entirety (note that I did not simply revert your addition, but changed it) you could have modified my changes to add more clarification and given your explanation in the edit summary, rather than spending your time accusing me of edit-warring on my Talk page. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Oil prices
The statement, "The healthcare industry, which has become highly consolidated over previous decades like the oil industry, and has until recently had prices continuously rising faster than inflation, has not experienced recent price inflation, whereas the oil industry has," is unencyclopedic, because it depends on arbitrary selections from time series commodity prices such as which do not necessarily comport, and because of WP:NOTCRYSTAL may not necessarily comport, with the text in the future. Sandizer (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * We don't use your own Original Research WP:OR to write statements, or to dispute them. The statement you quote here is well supported by two sources, BOTH of which interviewed economists about this phenomenon.
 * However, you may be right about the following statements, I haven't looked at those. --- Avatar317 (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you can say they are well-supported without the specific dates Sandizer  (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"permanent"
, I do not see there is a consensus view of this, or even that "many" economists think so soibangla (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Really? I would think that YOU understand the difference between "inflation", "disinflation", and DE-flation.  I haven't seen any economists saying that we can soon expect to be having deflation, not to mention that the Fed explicitly tries to avoid that, so that completely means that added statement is correct and well supported by economists, including Krugman in his NYT columms, if you've been reading those.  If we need more sources and a section covering that before it is included in the lead it shouldn't be hard to create such a section. --- Avatar317 (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * yes, I know the difference, and the article says Analysis conducted by NerdWallet in October 2023 data found that prices for 92 of the 338 goods and services measured in CPI had declined from one year earlier, representing deflation for those items. Maybe I'll pull up that BLS data for an update. Naturally we don't want a pernicious general deflation spiral, but there's nothing worrisome about price declines from an elevated level. if the added statement is correct and well supported by economists, then it should be no problem to provide sources reflecting that, which I would happily accept. but we don't have that here right now. soibangla (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * NerdWallet saved me the trouble: in February, 37% of CPI items deflated, compared to 27% in October. A growing number of products are seeing price declines.
 * NerdWallet links are blacklisted here for some reason, here it is:
 * nerdwallet.com/article/finance/what-prices-are-actually-deflating
 * I spot-checked it with the BLS file above soibangla (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, look at how many unions won and locked in historic wage gains just recently; this is just starting another wage-price spiral that isn't going to result in prices going back to pre-pandemic levels. While I haven't seen articles talking about the wage increases locking in higher prices, I have not seen anywhere economists predicting prices will return to pre-pandemic levels, rather I've seen lots of the opposite. --- Avatar317 (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I prefer to not speculate on what might happen, but I'm happy to entertain sources that show you've seen lots of the opposite from economists. soibangla (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A few sources:
 * “I think people are waiting for prices to return to what they call ‘normal’ — and with the exception of a few things, like eggs — we’re not going to see that. We’re going to see prices stabilize, and that’s likely it,” said Dawn Thilmany, an agricultural economist and professor at Colorado State University.
 * “People might just be still annoyed that prices are high compared to where they were. Even if prices have stopped going up at the rate that they were, it still sucks if you still are anchored to what things were in 2019,” said Matthew Klein, the founder and publisher of The Overshoot, an economic research service. SiennaVue (talk) 07:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I still do not see there is a consensus or even "many" economists saying this to include in wikivoice that current price levels are permanent, but keep on googlin'. as the great Yogi Berra said, "making predictions is hard, especially when you're talking about the future." many an economist has made predictions they regret, such as the imminent and inescapable recession we're supposed to be in right now.. on wikipedia, I believe in sticking to what has actually happened. soibangla (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia way to handle unfolding events is to use the "As of" template. E.g. "As of March 2024, U.S. inflation remains above 3%". I like the proposed title because then the as of just needs to be updated and not the title. Michaelmalak (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

, your recent edit confirms that current price levels remain elevated, but it does confirm they will be elevated permanently. It is literally impossible to prove it, and only a handful of analysts speculate it. Earlier here I showed an increasing percentage of CPI components are deflating, now 37%. It is WP:CRYSTALBALL for us to say in wikivoice that current price levels are permanent soibangla (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The statement in the lead: "Despite its decline, significant price increases across various goods and services sectors relative to pre-pandemic prices persist, which many economists agree is likely permanent." does NOT say or IMPLY *CURRENT* price levels will persist, only that prices will not go back to pre-pandemic levels - YOU are not arguing against what the statement actually says. --- Avatar317 (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * well, then when did many economists agree this? at the June 2022 peak when inflation resulted in 13.8% cumulative higher price levels than in Feb 2000, or in Feb 2024 when prices are 20% higher?. we at least need to specify when "many economists" asserted this. this is reminiscent of the doom predictions that the growth in the debt could never go negative, and then it did four years straight. And again, "many economists" said we'd be in a recession right now, instead the economy is roaring. The distinction you draw here does little to persuade me that "many economists" agree we will never again see prices like we had before, particularly when sources have not been presented to support the claim. let's include only what has actually happened, not what a handful of analysts have said might happen. soibangla (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The last three sources for that statement are from end-2023 beginning-2024, which follows from the preceding sentence: "...and sharply declined in 2023 and into 2024.", so that would be the time we are talking about, but we could specify that time (which is now, today) more clearly if you like.
 * Separately, predictions are easy, all they need are to be vague enough. The debt going negative was from two factors: Clinton's creation of the alternative-minimum tax (which acted to essentially close lots of tax loopholes) coinciding with, and more substantially, the dot-com bubble, which created lots of artificial wealth (not based on business fundamentals, but on market psychology) for lots of people which they paid federal tax on.  Of course prices could go pre-pandemic low again, we could have another pandemic, but that isn't what economists talk about when they predict future prices. (Force majeure). --- Avatar317 (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * deficits were already on a downward trajectory in FY1993, leading to surpluses and debt reduction, long before the dotcom bubble, but anyway ...
 * so far the only source I see presented here of an economist saying we'll never get back to "normal" is a Colorado State University ag economist, and even she hedges with "likely." the rest just seem to acknowledge that prices are "sticky up," which is not the same as permanent. "prices rise like a rocket and fall like a feather."
 * unless the edit is at least rephrased to include words like "some" and "speculate" and "might," I am prepared to remove it imminently. soibangla (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay - connectivity issues. I am fine with rephrasing the edit to the proposed language. SiennaVue (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * your rephrasing seems fine to me. I have no further issues. soibangla (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

, your AP addition also does not support permanent. I could have reverted the "permanent" edit immediately, but I chose to discuss first. I am now inclined to revert it because the discussion has failed to support "permanent." soibangla (talk)

, unless at least one source is presented to unambiguously show that many economists assert current price levels are likely permanent, I will remove your edit as unsupported WP:CRYSTALBALL. soibangla (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * If you think it implies CURRENT price levels, than can you suggest an alternative wording? I'm sure you'd agree that even without a pandemic and instead a happy 2% yearly inflation, prices would be permanently higher now (though maybe not "significantly") than Jan 2020. --- Avatar317 (talk) 05:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * no, I would not agree that prices would be permanently higher now as I don't try to predict CPI, which typically goes up but also goes down, sometimes sharply and even deflationarily. we need only to look back as recently as the first three months of the pandemic to see deflation. "permanent" means forever, and that's some real WP:CRYSTALBALL there. soibangla (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree that the language should be speculative, rather than unambiguous. The proposed edit by @Soibangla has been applied.  This seems to be the main issue @Soibangla is addressing.  The sources cited unambiguously indicate that the world will not be seeing 2019 prices again.  Thus, implicit in that opinion is that the elevated prices across most sectors are here to stay (i.e., 'permanent').  Indeed, @Soibangla's CPI source does indicate some food items have 'deflated', however this appears to be relative only on a 12-month interval not taking into account the late 2021 inflationary surge, nor 2019 prices and before.  Using an extreme analogy as an example, if market prices for one good (i.e., dairy) were to have increased in 2021 by 50%, then 'deflated' by 17% in 2022 or 2023, as would be indicated in an annual CPI report, we still have a net increase of 33% relative to 2020.  Yes, a deflation occurred, but it is relative.  The price of the good is still abnormally inflated, and not likely to return to its 2020 (or 2019) market price, which is precisely what some of these sources indicate.  Thus, the new market price is permanent.  To return to 2019 prices would require, as some sources indicate, a catastrophic economic event which would actually be more harmful to consumers than they would realize because it would entail consumers saving their money in anticipation that further price drops would occur which would result in massive job losses once companies reduce overhead as consumer demand decreases.  This scenario, of course, is highly unlikely.  What is likely is continued inflation, as has been throughout history.  A small rate is manageable, but the 2021-2023 surge we saw following the pandemic is certainly once in a lifetime.  Therefore, it is important to highlight the nature of the prices we are currently seeing today.  Even without including it, any reasonable person can look back 5 years and remember when groceries, gasoline, eating out, and getting a mortgage were far less expensive.  Including some language in the article's introduction assuring readers that we are in a different time now is critical.  As indicated, I agree with the proposed edit. SiennaVue (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason for the constant increase in prices in certain products are shortages in production. Several of the European coountries have long depended on importing wheat from Ukraine, and the war disrupted that supply chain. Resulting in rising prices for bread, beer, and other products where wheat is necessary. In recent months, we have seen rising prices for cocoa beans because both the Ivory Coast	and Ghana (the two leaders in cocoa bean production) have had their agricultural production reduced due to poor weather conditions. Dimadick (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's why the Fed ignores food and gas prices when it looks at core inflation. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

PCE inflation rate
FYI, the PCE inflation rate, which the Fed prefers to measure inflation, was 2.5% in February.

It's getting real close to the Fed's inflation target of 2.0%, and it is below the 2.7% in March 2021 when the surge was imminent.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1jsyl soibangla (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the last article I read in the WSJ said that other indicators looked worse than the Fed expected and that it might have to re-evaluate whether it does any rate cuts this year. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * well yeah, delaying cuts would push it below 2%. if factors other than inflation looked worse, they'd cut now soibangla (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. As I mentioned previously, inflation rate does not necessarily correspond to current prices.  They are completely different.  Again, why it is critical to have this distinction for readers to understand in the introductory section. SiennaVue (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)