Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biflation


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. A confused discussion with no clear outcome as to the reliability of the references or the etymology. Ultimately, being self-published is not reason enough to dismiss the Fekete source, and thus the notability of the topic. Skomorokh 16:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Biflation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

patent nonsense. Article claims that biflation is simultaneous inflation and deflation. Inflation and deflation are both concepts which apply to the whole economy. The economy cannot inflate and deflate at the same time. Article says that some parts of the economy inflate while others deflate. This is a misuse of the terms "inflation" and "deflation". Some random refs do not add to the understanding. Jasy jatere (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"What does it all mean? At minimum it means that we can have inflation cum deflation. I am not referring to stagflation. I refer to the seemingly impossible phenomenon that the money supply inflates and deflates at the same time. The miracle would occur through the devolution of money. This is Alf Field’s admirable phrase to describe the „good money is driven out by bad” syndrome. Electronic dollars driving out FR notes. The more electronic money is created by Helcopter Ben, the more FR notes will be hoarded by banks and financial institutions while passing along electronic dollars as fast as they can. Most disturbing of all is the fact that FR notes will be hoarded by the people, too. If banks cannot trust one another, why should people trust the banks? Devolution is the revenge of fiat money on its creator, the government. The money supply will split up tectonically into two parts. One part will continue to inflate at an accelerating pace, but the other will deflate. Try as it might, the Federal Reserve will not be able to print paper money in the usual denominations fast enough, especially since the demand for FR notes is global. Regardless of statistical figures showing that the global money supply is increasing at an unprecedented rate, the hand-to-hand money supply may well be shrinking as hoarding demand for FR notes becomes voracious. The economy will be starved of hand-to-hand money. Depression follows deflation as night follows day."
 * Keep - The above statement inflation and deflation cannot occur simultaneously is not true at all. They can, indeed occur simultaneously. The commenter above is referring to “Economic” inflation and deflation not occurring simultaneously.  I agree. However, the term ‘Biflation’ refers to “Price” inflation (not economic inflation) which can occur simultaneously. Refer to an 2007 article by Professor Antal E. Fekete, “Can We Have Inflation and Deflation at the Same Time?” Professor Fekete is a full Professor of Mathematics and Economics at the University of Newfoundland. He’s an expert on monetary economics and has served as a consultant to Paul Volker (Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank). In the article he states:
 * The term "Biflation" has 1,260 hits on Google and is being discussed internationally. Why would you want to delete the term? - Karl  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.217.23 (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have to agree with 209.107.217.23. There would seem to be a number of ghits with apparently sensible articles on the subject. Ben   Mac  Dui  15:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral If registered users with an interest in economics don't think its worth keeping then I don't want to argue with that. Ben   Mac  Dui  07:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - The concept seems possible, i.e. that there is inflation in one class of goods, and deflation in another class of goods at the same time. However, except for this one article from the Dallas News, there are no reliable sources showing that the concept is notable. There is no plausible explanation given for how this could happen (the explanation in the article is confused and OR), and no external links to articles giving plausible explanations. Also, a search on google scholar, google news, and google books turn up nothing related to the concept as it is described in the article. (There is a obviously unrelated use in some material science articles.) The Fekete paper cited above, appears to be self-published, and is not about what the concept described in the biflation article, rather it is about a related concept which Fekete calls 'Devolution'. LK (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Appears to be original research. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I read the article by Dr. Antal Fekete. The quoted passage is entitled "Devolution" but the article is titled "Inflation and Deflation Can We have both at the same time".  It does support the concept that both can exist simultaneously.  It does not mention the term "Biflation" but it seems to describe the concept of Biflation as defined here at Wiki.  As a side note, one of my recent graduate macro-economics seminars discussed, among other things the concept of Biflation.  Although there was disagreement as to whether such a thing is occurring at present, most agreed that Biflation is a real concept, not yet widely accepted (as are many new economic ideas) and needs to be more widely explored and developed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.107.217.5 (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Kill it with fire, and throw the socks in the wash. Non-notable neologism supported by perverse redefinition of standard terms. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Doing a Google search for “biflation” which excludes pages with the terms “wikipedia”, “*wiki*”, and “blog” results in just 81 hits, and these remaining hits do not appear to be notable. (They start with a couple at digitalganster.com.) It appears that this term is being kited like a check for which there are no covering funds. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: An edit by the Lawrencekhoo An edit by another anon has unfairly made it seem that 209.107.217.23 has attempted to vote twice. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you look at this version, you will see that 209.107.217.23 did vote twice (or perhaps didn't vote at all). I fixed it for him so that he voted once. He has since voted again (perhaps due to being unclear on what to do). I'll leave that for you to fix. (My mistake, that's a different IP) In the future, it would be good if you did your homework before accusing other editors of cheating. LK (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: What 209.107.217.23 did was to express himself twice, and the natural reading was that his second edit was a follow-up comment. Adding a “Keep” in front of that follow-up comment gave it the spurious appearance of an attempt to be a second vote.  I did not accuse you of cheating; there are other explanations besides malice for your actions; I noted what you had actually done and what the consequences were.  Also, please do not again reformat my comment about your edit as if it is a reply to the comment prior to it. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 08:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: What I did was to format and wikify the two separate comments, when I realized that they were the same person, I consolidated them. As is clear from the edit history, this was all done within a few minutes. You have accused me of misconduct and now you refuse to apologize. You hide behind obscurantist language, but the conduct and intent is clear. There was no reason for your commment, you picked out an intermediate edit and accused me of misconduct. Taken as a whole my edits wikified the text. You should come clean and apologize. Regardless, this is not the proper place for this argument, if you wish to pursue this matter, we should take this to the civility noticeboard. LK (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC
 * Comment: What you did wasn't simply to format two comments, but to add “Keep” in front of each as if each were a vote. Regardless of whether you did this deliberately or thoughtlessly (and I haven't presented a theory of your motives), that lent an unfair appearance that 209.107.217.23 had attempted to cast two votes.  You are not owed an apology for an objective description of what you did and what resulted.  The parties owed apologies here are 209.107.217.23 and me.  The latter because, contrary to your accusations, I made no claim that you were deliberately unfair.  There's nothing obscurantist in my very direct responses to you. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 08:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Off-topic Comment: As is clear from the edit history, what I did was to format and wikify what appeared to be two different votes from two anon IPs, adding keep as it seemed clear that the anon does want to vote. I then noticed that both comments were left by the same IP, so, I consolidated them into one vote. This was all done within a few minutes, before anyone else left any comments. There was no reason for you to leave the comment, "An edit by the Lawrencekhoo has unfairly made it seem that 209.107.217.23 has attempted to vote twice". What you did was to pull out an intermediate edit and then accuse me of misconduct. You have refused to retract this accusation, and refuse to apologize, instead further accusing me of misconduct. You should come clean and admit that your first accusation was a mistake. In any case this is not the correct forum for this, kindly keep this on your talk page where it belongs. LK (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, not only is that not clear from the edit history; part of it is falsified by the edit history. I hadn't interpretted these as two separate votes before your edit, but I can accept an assertion that they appeared so to you.  But youdidn't consolidate them into one vote; you placed and left a “Keep” in front of each. (It is the edit in which you slapped-on those “Keeps” — which you left in all of your subsequent editing — that I “pulled out”, because that's the edit that presents the two comments as each an attempt to vote.) When you reordered the comments to place the second right after the first, you didn't “consolidate them into one vote”; you left the “Keep” that you had placed in front of each.  It stood there until I removed it more than a day later.  I stand by exactly what I have said, and I have not denied saying anything that I have said.  Your edit created an unfair appearance that 209.107.217.23 had attempted to vote twice.  I never claimed that you did this in an attempt to “cheat”; I never claimed that you did this in an attempt to game the system.  Nor do I even think that you are actually lying when you accuse me of such claims; instead, I think that you're still barreling ahead thoughtlessly.  As to keeping it on my talk page, if you'll not bring it back here, I'll not bring it back here. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 09:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment In the hopes of not completely hijacking this page, I would direct anyone who is still interested in this tirade to look at Slamdiego's talk page here. Thank you, LK (talk) 09:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Off-topic Comment: In case anyone is interested, I have filed a Wikiquette alert on this issue here.
 * Retraction: It is since revealed that Lawrencekhoo in fact removed the second “Keep” that he had applied, and that a second “Keep” was re-added by 98.248.145.188. I therefore apologize to Lawrencekhoo, but reïterate that I never accused him of attempting to cheat or to game the system, nor am I now accusing 98.248.145.188 of attempting to cheat or to game the system. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 10:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The term 'biflation' is not uncommonly used in China. McCombs School of Business. McComb’s School of Business at the University of Texas-Austin


 * http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/news/mentions/march05.asp


 * Business in China Causes ‘Biflation’ in USA The Dallas Morning News, The Kansas City Star, March 13-31, 2005 Although China is heralded for benefiting Americans by producing low-cost consumer goods, consumption practices in China may actually cause other commodity prices to rise, experts say, resulting in “biflation.” While shoes and shirts made in China cost less, gasoline, electricity and maybe even houses in the U.S. cost more as a result of consumption in China. For example, last year, China accounted for 40 percent of the increase in global consumption of oil. This higher demand, of course, drives prices higher worldwide. As China becomes the world’s leading consuming nation, Michael Brandl, a lecturer of finance at McCombs, sees dangerous signs of a Chinese asset bubble. “Real estate prices have gone through the roof,” he said. “At the same time, China has poorly run banks with lots of non-performing loans.” A similar situation in Thailand created a financial crisis in Asia from 1997-1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.145.188 (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: That's a very different definition than that provided in an earlier comment. This clash of definitions illustrates that this isn't a notable term; we just have a small number of authors slapping-together the same portmanteau when they want to be cute. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 02:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment And all of those instances (in the Dallas Morning News and Kansas City Star ) seem to stem from a coinage by a Chinese guy named Weijian Shan, which means it is a neologism. The word seems to have had separate unrelated etymologies, but all appear to be neologisms that have not yet gained widespread acceptance/usage. Strikehold (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Term has certainly been used, but it is a neologism used for different concepts, none of which seem to have gained enough traction to achieve notability individually. Strikehold (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.