Humanities desk
< April 14	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 15

Great Inflation of 17th Century Europe?

What were the causes and consequences of the Great Inflation of 17th Century Europe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.60.153 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.

Could look at The General Crisis... -- AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The old view was that the inflation was due to the flood of precious metals from the New World. Recent work has cast doubt on this, saying the inflation preceded the metals coming in, which perhaps accomodated it, though.John Z (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"S.S." Titanic

If this is not the proper forum for the following question, please direct me to the proper place.
Although I "know" this to be true, or at least a reasonable assertion, I need assistance in finding a notable source for reference:
..."R. M. S." (Royal Mail Ship) was considered a courtesy title for the ship itself. Many on-board items (including lifeboats and life-preservers) were labeled with "S. S.".
Can anybody help me with this? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the RMS article, RMS only applies while a ship is carrying mail, and would be designated SS at other times. So, I don't have a direct answer to your question, but it would make sense that the shipboard items would carry the SS label. RudolfRed (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article on RMS Titanic says that it was carrying mail, so the RMS was not just a couresy designation, it was entitled to it. RudolfRed (talk)2

Yes, but I need a cite-able source -- even though "if it's on Wikipedia it must be true". ;) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check Google Books perhaps?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try the resource exchange at WP:LIB RudolfRed (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if James Cameron manages to loot all the mail out of the ship for museums (or something), does it become the SS Titanic again? ;) Wnt (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no, because it was carrying mail when it left port. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would just be an RMS without mail, not an SS that once had mail. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

China aid to North Korea

Does China provide food, fuel, monetary, or other aid to North Korea? If so, how much? If not, why not? 70.59.20.190 (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

China provides various forms of aid, including food and monetary aid. It has also provided fuel and building materials in the recent past. I can't find much detail online at the moment. Chinese source. Brief references to food and financial aid[1][2]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent news stories have indicated that very little is known about the nature of the relationship between China and North Korea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If so, you'd certainly think they would have used that leverage to control NK better, to avoid a nuclear arms race with Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. StuRat (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the Chinese have discovered that NK is much less compliant than you might reasonably expect given the degree and duration of support they've received from China (ref). China fears instability or breakdown of NK would lead to an influx of starving refugees into China (ref). In its fondness for a buffer between itself and SK (ref) I think the Chinese are waking up to the realisation that they've painted themselves into a corner - they've propped up an increasingly eccentric NK government which hasn't followed China's own path toward modest reform and pragmatism, and things are in such a position it's difficult for anyone to make progress. NK is like a tattoo China got when it was 18, but now it's 40 and a family man and the tattoo is a rather embarrassing reminder of a wild youth that'll be expensive and a bit painful to get lasered off. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good metaphor for the news report that caught my attention (it might have been on NPR, I don't recall). Basically, China likes things stable, and North Korea is constantly threatening that stability, but also maybe doing stuff that China likes, so they stay the course. Most of those conclusions seem to be by inferrence, as the honchos in China are notoriously close-mouthed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are they doing that China likes ? StuRat (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Being a buffer state", for one thing. Googling [npr north korea and china] yields a number of interesting recent articles. This one is pretty good.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you don't mean they are worried about South Korea's (or a united Korea's) military, but rather their cultural influence. I imagine this could be stopped be sealing the border, placing a high wall, and jamming all transmissions. Seems a lot less risky than a bunch of crazies with nukes and bad hair on your border. StuRat (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure that logic enters into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, China probably doesn't want North Korean nuclear weapons falling into the hands of South Korea or a united and pro-American Korea. But China could have done more to stop NK getting the weapons in the first place. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US has troops in South Korea. Without NK as a buffer (i.e. South Korea uniting the two), then the US can literally station its troops on the Chinese border. South Korea to the US is similar to Cuba to the old USSR. And the Americans weren't really happy about the USSR aiding Cuba. Same logic applies. Animusv3^{Talk to me! Contribs} 12:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fit to fly as passengers

It's understood the crewmembers of FedEx Flight 705 are medically unfit to fly commercially. But nothing was said whether or not they can fly aboard commercial airliners as passengers. Can those men do so?24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People with all sorts of physical impairments fly as passengers. "Unfit to fly" presumably means there's concern about them being able to fully function as crew members. All a passenger has to do is sit there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness' sake, there are some limitations on passengers, although not many. Women late in their pregnancies may be refused carriage, as may those with medical conditions which may require emergency attention which cannot be provided in-flight. Emergency landings are expensive and disruptive. However, I believe Baseball Bugs' answer is correct in this case. 58.111.224.202 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People that are drunk are often declared unfit to fly as well. --Tango (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People requiring oxygen tanks have been refused, since a leak in those tanks could pose a fire risk. Portable oxygen concentrators have recently provided a safer alternative. StuRat (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I think it's safe to say that an airline could refuse service to anyone they reasonably think might jeopardize the health and safety of themselves or other passengers. It does not appear that's the case with those grounded crewmen the OP asked about. I expect there's a reference somewhere on this subject, i.e. of airlines right of refusal, but I'm not sure where to look. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some googling turned up this interesting writeup.[4] I think the OP will find that it confirms those crewmen cannot be refused passage under normal circumstances. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to regulations in the US, I'm not allowed to carry passengers that I think are under the influence of illegal drugs, unless it is an emergency. Other than that (for noncommercial operations; I don't fly commercially), I can't really think of a case where I have to refuse to take a passenger based on their condition. Of course, if I thought that somebody was going to be a danger to the flight, or that flying would put them in danger, I would refuse to allow them on board. Falconus^{p t c} 17:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelchair users are not allowed to board if an airline decides it already has as many wheelies on a flight as it can handle. HiLo48 (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People with an infectious airborne disease are obviously a risk to other passengers. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it gets back to the apparent ambiguity in a term like "fit to fly". To you and me, it would mean simply that we're sufficiently "fit" to be allowed to fly as a passenger. But in aircraft shop talk, "fit to fly" would mean allowed to work. If a friend is impaired in some way, he's not "fit to drive", but he's most likely "fit to ride as a passenger" while the designated driver takes the wheel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article you linked to, the pilots are disabled now, one suffering motor control problems, which impairs him from being a pilot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XPPaul (talk • contribs) 21:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the geographical surnames of Gate of Tears

Please help me i want it because of my exams — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajnish212 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do people's homework for them, but what do you mean by "geographical surnames"? Is Bab-el-Mandeb any help for you? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge and Punishment

What's the difference between revenge and punishment?

Bowei Huang 2 (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles on both. Might as well look them up yourself rather than expecting someone to paraphrase here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between User:Bowei Huang 2 and a troll? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a "touché" barnstar, you would be today's winner. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent addition to his Talk page answers that question well. HiLo48 (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qualitative research vs. case-based research vs. grounded theory

I am a bit puzzled. I wonder if anyone could explain the relationship between these three terms. Are they synonyms? Is grounded theory just one type of qualitative research (e.g., action-based research being another one)? 130.149.218.217 (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qualitative research is a general category of research, comparable to Quantitative research and Text analysis as a general approach to the problem of making empirical claims about problems.

Case studies is one way of doing research. In general, it just means selecting particular examples and examining them. A quantitative survey of Australian inflation rates compared to babies born would be a case study—it isn't a world wide study. But, case studies are normally used in qualitative research as it is impossible to ascertain the qualities of all things simultaneously, and so representative or randomised cases are selected.

I have no idea what "grounded theory" is, apart from being a way of conducting sociological research. Grounded theory would be a categorisation of research equivalent in level to "action-based" research. Compare to other things at the same level such as "participant observation" or "observation". Fifelfoo (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MIT study on Motivation

Does anyone know which study Dan Pink is referencing here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

Is the original study available on the web? AndyJones (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice link. Thanks. Don't know about the sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Population 1976-1980

Any advice on where to find a reference for population by country of European countries (or just West European countries) for any one of the years during the period of 1976-1980? --Soman (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles generally for 'demographics of', e.g. Demographics of Spain. These tend to include yearly population tables cited to the relevant national statistics body --Saalstin (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that would require going through each of the wiki pages checking references. For example, the search through the Spanish reference ends in a javascript link that my browser won't open. There ought to be a summary somewhere, so I won't have to add 20 references for one article. --Soman (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here I found a list that might do the job. http://books.google.com/books?id=S2W9jZcp6M0C&pg=PA21 --Soman (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~A follow-up question, what would be the population of ~~Northern Ireland and~~ West Berlin in 1976? --Soman (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

1099

hi, could you tell me about 1099 agents or link to the relevant article here. Thanks.--84.1.177.43 (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only 1099 that I know anything about is the IRS tax form which reports various kinds of income. Is that what you're referring to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the research I can get to here https://www.google.com/search?q=1099+agents in wikipedia form. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have the idea encapsulated in "Independent contractor" (reachable from the link I posted earlier), which is basically a synonym for "1099 agent". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Government non-dollar debt

Most of the U.S. debt (in fact, probably the overwhelming majority) is denominated in U.S. dollars. Thus, it could, at least in theory, be monetized, i.e. "printed off". Yes, I know this would likely cause serious inflation.

Does the U.S. Federal Government have any significant sovereign liabilities / debt denominated in things other than in U.S. Dollars (i.e. foreign currency, gold, etc). If yes, can someone provide figures, or point me in the right direction to where I could find out more about this area of U.S. Debt? 58.111.224.202 (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concubines today

Does the practice of maintaining concubines still happen today? Benyoch (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but mistress is the commonly used term today. It must be pointed out that not all mistresses are maintained by their lovers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jeanne, and agreed. But I am thinking more about a formalised assembly or grouping of women held 'captive', voluntary or otherwise (should have said as much in the question). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benyoch (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See sexual slavery for the "otherwise" part. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of "voluntary captivity" is an odd one; I was thrown by the sociologically standard phrase "kidnapping by consent" in our article bride kidnapping. The current Marquess of Bath might fit your criteria for harem-keeper:

He has had openly sexual relations with over 70 women during his marriage, and has installed many of them in estate cottages. He refers to these woman as wifelets.

As for "formalised assembly", you might find leads within polyamory. Also, as Islamic marital jurisprudence permits four wives under certain circumstances, Muslims who immigrate to countries that do not recognise polygamy may claim that some of the women in the family group are aunts or sisters. They then continue to live together in a family unit,albeit with one woman having more rights under (e.g.) Canadian law, as a recognised spouse, than the others. They would not see themselves as concubines, though. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in addition to four wives, Islamic law also allows for sex with slave girls. Although this form of sexual slavery is not commonly practiced in islamic countries today, some advocate bringing back the practice (see e.g. [5]). - Lindert (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Founding of the Republic of South Africa

Hi,

The South Africa article states that the Republic of South Africa was formed in 1961, but is there any reason why they decided to leave the British Empire at that point of time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulielmus estavius (talk • contribs) 18:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to History of South Africa.99.245.35.136 (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Just to clarify terminology here: In 1961 SA became a republic. That meant it now had its own head of state and was no longer a Commonwealth realm (those 16 countries all share the same head of state, currently Queen Elizabeth II). But SA could still have opted to remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, which currently has 53 members. All Commonwealth Realms are members of the Commonwealth, but not all members of the Commonwealth are Commonwealth Realms. I guess you're asking why SA not only ceased to be a Commonwealth Realm, but also chose to leave the Commonwealth entirely. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is strictly off the top of my head (or back of my aging memory), so should be confirmed, denied or clarified by better research, but I think that upon becoming a Republic, South Africa had to reapply for membership in the Commonwealth, and feared enough opposition from other members (especially after worldwide protests of such incidents as the Sharpeville massacre in 1960), that either out of pride, prudence or Afrikaner nationalism, she decided not to reapply. But as I implied, questioners come to this Reference Desk for more solid answers (or at least leads) than that. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some discussion of it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the nationalism idea, afterall, the Brittish invaded and annexed the their countries. Smiliarly to what Germany did to France in the WWs. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic (1997 film)

I know the director has rebuilt the whole model of the ship Titanic. But at the scene where the ship sunk and broke in half. I wonder was it a real ship (i meant like it is fake but they were using the real ship to shoot the movie for it to look very real) or just computer animated? In other word, do they actually create that scene and shoot it? Or did they just use the computer to do it?65.128.159.201 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Titanic (1997 film)#Effects. Among others, they used a model of the ship's stern that could break in two repeatedly. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They made a number of models at different scales. And as filmmaking has demonstrated many times, a small but sufficiently detailed model (especially one that's fairly dark) can be pretty convincing on the big screen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the model itself, yes, but there are problems with flames and water. When you see a splash that's 3 feet long, it doesn't look anything like a splash that's 300 feet long, and this can make your Titanic model look like the bathtub toy it really is. So, presumably, that's where the special effects were needed. StuRat (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The nature of water especially was always a bugaboo for filmmakers. As dramatic as the sea battle was in Ben-Hur, it was still clear that they were using models, because the water didn't look right. With CGI, of course, you can do anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not quite anything, yet. CGI humans still don't look quite right. StuRat (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True. But faking proper-sized waves is probably not that difficult, especially for a moonless night. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone here watched the Titanic 100 mini-series by National Geographic yet? They indicate new discoveries and faults with the movie. For instance, a mirage caused a false horizon above the actual horizon, causing the silhouette of the iceberg to be hidden from view, which would otherwise be superimposed on a stary background. Or, that the Titanic broke between the third and fourth funnel, when the angle of inclination reached approximately 19 degrees instead of the near 45 degrees shown in the movie. Or that the stern did not rise to 90 degrees, but rolled and pitched into a dive instead. Or, that unlike the movie, the wood panelling of the grand staircase ripped away due to buoyancy forces. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, they made a lifesize model or venier of the port side of the Titanic attatched to a floating scaffold. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just reading this APOD post, [6], which is about how a Fata Morgana mirage might have obscured the view of icebergs. There are links to further info on the topic. It also links to the Wikipedia page Fata Morgana (mirage). Pfly (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this video excerpt from the National Geographic show you mention, showing a CGI of the sinking, [7]. Pfly (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation 0 rate?

It makes no sense to me that how can some countries have an inflation rate of 0? Inflation always happen everywhere but the difference is how much is the rate. Inflation rate of 0 would mean it has no inflation rate, which is not true.65.128.159.201 (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prices can go up or down. Certain items, like electronics, regularly decrease in price, while others increase. Also, during a recession or depression, you can get general deflation. Occasionally, then, you will also get an inflation rate of close to zero. StuRat (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The artwork is alleged to be supported by sources. Perhaps the OP should review those sources and then it might turn out to be true, i.e. a "net" inflation of about 0 as per Stu's comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The graph linked to doesn't say some countries have an inflation of 0. Some have between 0 and 2% and some have less than 0% (i.e. the deflation StuRat was pointing to) and that's the case in some partial fields, like the real estate market. Obviously, having exactly 0% of inflation might be so difficult as having 2.53345%. XPPaul (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If 0% inflation troubles you then deflation is going to blow your mind away.99.245.35.136 (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why people are surprised about prices going down. Everyone can see that happening: cheaper electronics are (almost) the rule, cheaper apartments are common in many places. XPPaul (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that exactly zero inflation is possible, for a time, with price controls. However, current economic theory suggests that these are a bad idea. StuRat (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how long "for a time" lasts. Days? The effects described in Price_ceiling#Consequences_of_binding_price_ceilings, which are not just a theory, but were the reality, can appear almost immediately. XPPaul (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they try to put price controls in place to halt high inflation, then days is probably right. However, there can be periods of many years where prices remain fixed, in cases where they would have only changed slightly without price controls. In antiquity, I believe a large portion of the code of Hammurabi was price controls, which lasted for decades. StuRat (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really zero inflation. That is zero change in prices. Inflation is when the value of money declines; that is not exactly the same as increase in prices. --Trovatore (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the value of money if not how much you can buy with it (ie. prices)? --Tango (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that nominal prices remain the same does not imply that you will necessarily be able to buy at that price. Also, you presumably are not interested in exchanging all your money for goods and services immediately; part of the value, therefore, depends on the goods and services you expect to be able to exchange it for at some later time, and this cannot be captured by a snapshot of current prices. --Trovatore (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a common definition of inflation, which is generally used to mean price inflation.John Z (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on which economists you talk to. I think it's common among the Chicago and Austrian schools. --Trovatore (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They tend to identify inflation with Monetary inflation somewhat or wholly, as do their theories. That's probably the older usage of the word, but it's been displaced by inflation = "price inflation".John Z (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if so, I think that's an error. The fact that nominal prices are not increasing does not imply that the underlying inflationary processes are not happening. --Trovatore (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not underestimate the importance of "the value of money" concept, but it is hard to get at, approachable in many ways. (Especially in an age of degenerating applied economics / social technology as now, compared to the 1950s-60s say). But price inflation is a very important aspect of it. It's what matters to ordinary people in the short run, and in the long run we are all dead. The good reason for the displacement was that monetary inflation - changes in some measure of money - while related to price inflation, obviously have much less direct real-life importance. And quantities of money are not necessarily the underlying process as Austrian / Monetarists think, causation goes both ways, and distribution is important. Focusing on that would overemphasize a disputed theory of the underlying cause of an empirical phenomenon of great practical importance to everyone, but which is hard enough to define and measure as it is.John Z (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly true that nominal prices are easier to measure than "value of money". But if the price controls have caused a shortage that means you can't find the item — or if you have to go out of your way to get it — then the stability of the nominal price is not in fact particularly useful to you. Inflation has happened in this scenario; it's only the instrument of measurement that has been defeated. --Trovatore (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a dozen ways to measure inflation. Price control can make one measure (CPI) 0%, but the other 11 measures may not show exactly 0%. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP' has an inflation bias ("Inflation always happen everywhere but the difference is how much is the rate.") Having lived through deflation, I can confirm that prices do not always rise. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that deflation sometimes happened BUT in a bigger picture. Inflation will ultimately what will happen. Inflation has proven to be inevitable to economy's growth. Let me make a clear example. About a hundred years ago, you can buy something with a penny. Now what can you buy with a penny? Look at how much the cost has increased? 100 more times at the least!65.128.159.201 (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the chart shows inflation rates for 2009, not over the last century. StuRat (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, inflation seems to be the norm in a growing economy, but, as our article Deflation explains, deflationary spirals are not impossible. Dbfirs 07:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An exercise for the student: 1) Calculate the rate of change in the price of computing one million instructions per second. For reference, the price in 1980 was about US$1 million, and today is less than $1. Do the same for the cost of a trans-Atlantic telephone call, from 1930 to 2010. 2) Define "price deflation" in this context. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but then compare the average amount per person spent on computers, or on transatlantic telephone calls over the respective periods. Dbfirs 06:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would give you nice insights into household budgeting, but not tell you much about price changes. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]