Talk:Inflation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Nick Gardner No edit summary |
imported>Hayford Peirce (→Definition: well, take a look a the WP article about it -- they, at least, explain what it is in the first sentence) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
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? [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 17:00, 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? [[User:Nick Gardner|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*. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:28, 10 September 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 17:28, 10 September 2008
- 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)