Talk:Fiscal theory of the price level
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
no Rubinomics citations[edit]
There are NO citations regarding the "Rubinomics" claim. Higher long-term rates could mean a lot of things, not only that there is high inflation; it could also mean that there is expected growth in the future. If there were citations with this claim, it would be more valid. As it stands, I am inclined to delete it. 134.126.230.214 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The Rubinomics thing is bunk, I deleted it. Rubin's support for cyclically balanced budgets is based on crowding out, which is a keynesian idea. It has nothing to do with the FTotPL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.158.159 (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Inflating away the debt[edit]
In real terms, a government can also inflate away the debt: if it causes or allows high inflation, the real amount it must repay will be smaller. Alternatively, it could default on its obligations.
Unless the debt is inflation linked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.160 (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Disputed[edit]
This article is incomplete, partially incorrect, not up-to-date and delivers a bias view about a theory that has a growing interest in the academic literature. It has to be carefully written by an expert. Interesting reader would rather read Sims (2013). — User:193.48.44.228 10:13, 5 April 2017