Talk:Inflation

Most of the paragraphs in this article could be expanded by drawing further on the article's references. Alternatively, further explanatory matter could be provided by other (as yet unwritten) articles such as monetarism, incomes policies and economic history. Nick Gardner 10:52, 10 September 2008 (CDT)

Definition

Nick, I see that you deleted my addition with no comment whatsoever. I think that this is rather rude, in that I made a good-faith effort to improve the article. Tell me, don't *YOU* think it would be nice to define "inflation" first? And, if not, why not? Hayford Peirce 16:43, 10 September 2008 (CDT)

Hayford - I appreciate your good intentions and I have no wish to give offence, but it took me a little while to explain what I have done, during which time your rapid response has prevented my reply from being saved. Now I shall to draft my explanation again - which I cannot start until tomorrow. Might I suggest that the provision of advance warning of alterations to an article might usefully avoid this sort of misunderstanding? Nick Gardner 17:00, 10 September 2008 (CDT)

If we have to discuss *every* alteration to *every* article in CZ, we might as well quit. Isn't this supposed to be a Wiki in which people collaborate? I made what seems to me to be a *very* reasonable addition. And I put in the Subject line what I was doing, and why. And actually asked for someone to rewrite it -- but not to revert it without a word. I certainly didn't change the sense of the article, or butcher it, or vandalize it, or cretinize it; in fact, I would argue that I *improved* it. If I were to write a paragraph *contradicting* say, the rest of the article, yes, certainly, I would have written an explanatory note on the discussion page.

At the time I made my addition, I hadn't bothered to read the WP intro to "Inflation", but here it is: "Inflation usually refers to a general rise in the level of prices of goods and services over a period of time. This is also referred to as price inflation.[1] The term "inflation" originally referred to the debasement of the currency, and was used to describe increases in the money supply (monetary inflation)" -- I hate to say so, but I think it's definitely better than your present version.

I see from your profile that you are an economist -- I therefore defer to your expertise in your field. *But*, just as I would argue with Prof. Jensen about historical issues, I am asserting my point of view as a *general reader*, NOT an economist. If the general reader for whom CZ is supposedly written, looks up Inflation, I think the first thing he/she should be told is precisely what inflation *is*. Hayford Peirce 17:28, 10 September 2008 (CDT)

Since you were unwilling to wait for my explanation, you have prolonged the misunderstanding. I do hope that I am able to get it saved this time! My recollection of the explanation that was preempted by your previous intervention is as follows:

Hayford: I am grateful for your reminder that I had momentarily forgotten to insert an introductory statement explaining what was to follow. I shall now correct that omission. I have deleted the dictionary attribution to the monetarist definition of inflation from the paragraph on the measurement of inflation because it has nothing to do with measurement, and because it preempts the paragraphs on the causes of inflation. I have no objection to placing a monetarist definition of that sort in the paragraph on monetary causes, so long as it is done in such a way as to make clear that CZ is not taking sides in the controversy on the subject. But the projected article on monetarism would in any case give a full explanation of the monetarist case.

As to your further complaint, I do welcome laymen's comments on my articles, and I do understand if people are too busy to read the article carefully before doing so. But, if you had given me warning of what you intended, I could have reminded you that the article (and others) makes it clear that the monetarist explanation is only one of the competing theories, and you would then have been aware that you were inadvertantly proposing the insertion of a biassed statement. Please do not let this deter you from further suggestions on articles that I have drafted - after I have time to complete them - however. All are welcome. Nick Gardner 18:06, 10 September 2008 (CDT)

Your comments are welcome, but I think that you are basically misunderstanding the functioning of a CZ wiki if you feel that only *completed* articles can be edited by others. How is a reader supposed to know when your article is considered "finished"? And, I remind you, CZ articles do *not* belong to any particular editor or author, no matter what the credentials and expertise of that person may be. CZ is supposed to be a *collaborative* effort. Naturally, I will defer to you on the bulk of almost any article that you write; but if you make what seems to be an elementary error or omission, even if it is temporary, I don't think that I, or any other author, should be told that we can't do anything about it. For instance, if I had begun my recent article about The Weavers with no mention in the first line that they were a popular American folk group of the mid-20th century, even if inadvertently, I would certainly welcome some other editor putting that info in there -- *at once*. Why wait? Naturally, I might then think that the actual wording of the new edit could be improved, but I would be happy to have it there -- the point of CZ, after all, is to write full, correct articles.... Hayford Peirce 19:11, 10 September 2008 (CDT)

Oh dear! I do seem to have upset you, and I am truly sorry to have done so. And I am sorry that it has led you to believe that I think that I own articles and that I will object to suggetions made in the course of drafting an article. Please accept my assurance that I think nothing of the sort. As I have said, your intervention in this case was welcome because it drew my attention to an omission that I might easily have overlooked. Please continue to remind me of omissions and to suggest improvements at any stage. I mentioned time for completion only because the process of completion could involve changing alterations made by others, and I would not wish that to give further offence. What more can I say?Nick Gardner 03:05, 11 September 2008 (CDT)

Nothing at all -- that's a very gracious statement by you and I certainly accept it in the spirit in which it was written. We'll say no more about the matter! Cheers! Hayford Peirce 09:55, 11 September 2008 (CDT)