Talk:Inflation/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Destruction of value by inflation

A contributor has been attempting to include a sentence in the first paragraph about the fact that inflation destroys the value of nominal assets. This is a very important effect of inflation which needs to be discussed in more detail in this article. But an effect of inflation is not the same thing as the definition of inflation. The first paragraph has been written as a definition, and the citation at the end of the third sentence is intended to cover all three sentences in the paragraph. Therefore it is important not to include other material in that paragraph that is not related to the definition.

The right place to discuss the fact that inflation destroys value would be in Section 3 'Role of inflation in the economy', or Subsection 4.1 'Problems'. Therefore I will move the statement about how inflation destroys value into Sec. 3.

Unfortunately, Sec. 3 is rather badly written and extremely badly organized. The contributor who wants to discuss the destruction of value by inflation could be very helpful by improving this section. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph is perhaps not dealing with the definition of inflation. A rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in a given economy over a period of time (the "defintion" of inflation) is an effect of inflating the money supply - the most generally accepted cause of inflation. This has to do with the generally accepted habit of people dealing with inflation of using the effect of inflation as the definition of inflation (lamented by other observers too and a habit now perhaps too difficult to change).
You are right that the definition has changed somewhat over time. The first paragraph gives the standard definition today: a rise in the price level (one standard textbook is cited but many others could be cited too). The older definition is what you call 'inflating the money supply'. That definition is discussed in the section Inflation#Related definitions. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
A definition of cash inflation (only one of the two components of inflation) can perhaps be stated as inflating the money supply where "increasing" the money supply is taken as increasing it in direct required proportion to the increase in new real value in the economy. Inflating the money supply (to more than what is required in the economy) is thus inflation since it always leads to a rise in the general level of prices of goods and services in a given economy over a period of time, or stated in another way: (1) the destruction of real value in monetary items [the one (cash) component of inflation] and (2) the destruction of constant real value non-monetary items (historical cost items, eg. retained income) when the latter are never updated as a result of the stable measuring unit assumption which is a generally accepted accounting principle or GAAP (the second (historical cost accounting) component of inflation).

Herbou (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It would help a lot if you would provide citations for the mechanism you are describing. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Which mechanism are you referring to? The stable measuring unit assumption is a Generally Accepted Accounting Principle and the basis of the Historical Cost paradigm.

If you never ever update an economic item under any circumstance (eg: retained income in low inflationary economies), the real value of that economic item is obviously destroyed at the rate of inflation. That is common sense. BTW that value destroyed is USD 30 Billion + per annum in the Dow companies.

Herbou (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the obvious textual overlaps, as well as IP numbers leading to the same sources, Risconsoleao, you should be aware this is User_talk:Herbou. Herbou, you should log in, given the history of sockpuppetry.--Gregalton (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Herbou, thank you for signing in, and welcome back.--Gregalton (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

mechanism

This sounds a lot like just a restatement of the quantity theory of money, an increase in the money supply beyond the increase in real GDP.--Gregalton (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Rinconsoleao is referring to the mechanism whereby the combination of inflation and the stable measuring unit assumption destroys real value in constant real value non-monetary items never updated.

Herbou (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish to congratulate Rinconsoleao for naming this section Destruction of Value by Inflation since hardly anyone wants to accept that inflation is always and everywhere the destruction of value. That is what inflation is all about. It is the essence of inflation: the destruction of value (in the two distinctly different ways).

The day he contributes a section on Wikipedia named The destruction of value by the Combination of Inflation and the Stable Measuring Unit Assumption I will have to get his address and send him a box of Belgian chocolates.

Herbou (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I still see the basic issue is that a) inflation destroys value (well recognised throughout); and b) measuring assumptions affect the measurement. How the poor measurement destroys value appears to be unsourced.--Gregalton (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there is already some discussion of the fact that inflation decreases the real value of assets that are denominated in nominal terms, but probably more could be said. In particular, a link to inflation accounting could be helpful. But it's important also to point out that these effects are not a destruction of value for the economy as a whole.
I totally disagree. ExxonMobil has more that USD 100 billion in retained income. 3% inflation destroys USD 3 Billion in real value each and every year in ExxonMobil´s retained income account. There is no compensating effect. That is destroyed in the economy. The annual total for only the 30 Dow companies exceeds USD 30 Billion per annum.

Herbou (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Inflation destroys the value of a nominal corporate bond (for example).

A corporate bond is a monetary item. Please try your explanation with a constant real value non-monetary item, eg. retained income. I have no problems with the destruction of value by inflation in monetary items or cash inflation. We are discussing the other one here. The one that effects non-monetary items never updated. Herbou (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why you call retained income a 'non-monetary item'.
Because it is a non-monetary item and is defined as such by the International Accounting Standards Board in International Accounting Standard IAS 29, paragraphs 12 and 14. Par 12 defines monetary items and Par 14 states that all other assets and liabilities are non-monetary items. Thus non-monetary items are all items that are not monetary items. In Par 25 it states that "all components of owners’ equity are restated". Only non-monetary items can be restated.

Herbou (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In all the examples you are mentioning, it would be very helpful if you would cite a specific page of a specific document that makes the same argument. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For the person who bought that bond, this is a loss of wealth. But for the corporation that issued that bond, it is an increase in wealth (i.e. a decrease in debt). For the economy as a whole, those two effects cancel. Therefore these issues should be included under the heading 'redistributive effects' of inflation. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Inflation destroys value (well recognised throughout)" because it is impossible to update monetary items, eg. money. A monetary item (USD 100 x 1000 notes = USD 100 000) is never updated. Its real value is thus destroyed at the rate of inflation. When the USD 100 000 is kept for 1 year and inflation is 2% then USD 2000 of real value is destroyed although the face value of the notes still add up to USD 100 000. The real value is only USD 98 000.

The exact same principle is true with a constant real value non-monetary item never updated, eg. retained income. When USD 100 000 of retained income is kept for 1 year in a company and inflation is 2% then USD 2000 of the retained income real value is destroyed (well recognised throughout) although the book value of the retained income is still USD 100 000 (well recognised throughout). After a year the retained income of USD 100 000 can be paid out as dividend but the real value is only USD 98 000 (well recognised throughout) - the same as in the case of money (well recognised throughout).

In the United Kingdom the Companies Act states "that the (accounting) principles are so basic that no reference to them need to be made." David Chopping and Len Skerratt, (1992), Applying GAAP 1995/96, Central Milton Keynes, UK: Accountancy Books, Page 12. Herbou (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for citing that! But I can't tell which of your claims this cite relates to. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than saying that inflation 'destroys' value, isn't it more accurate to say that inflation 'steals' value? Suppose the monetary authority prints more money. This action does not change the real demand for money, so the real value of the total money stock is the same as it was before.

I am not so sure that printing new money does not "change the real demand for money". Before the double entry accounting model was introduced the creating of new gold or silver coins obvioulsy increased the total amount of real value in those pre-accounting economies. While monetary coins had an intrinsic value, even after double entry accounting was introduced, GDP was always increased with the minting of new coins.
With the full introduction of fiat money, not backed by gold or silver or similar items, the double entry accounting model ensures that an increase in the money supply results in an increase in real GDP since it is recorded as a double entry in the central bank accounts.

Herbou (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

However, that real value is now spread across a larger nominal money stock, meaning that each nominal unit of money has less real value. In effect, some of the real value of each original unit of money has been transferred to the newly-created units. That's not vandalism - it's theft. Destruction of value could occur only if there is a decrease in the real demand for money, which could (ironically) be the result of a technological innovation (eg online banking) that enables consumers to hold smaller balances in their demand deposit accounts.

What you are asking in essence is the following: is money a real value and thus part of GDP? Being an accountant I will have to look this up. An up-to-date macroeconomist will be able to give us the answer straight away. This must be an easy question for a macroeconomist. They know the compostion of GDP. Any around? Gregalton please answer this one.
My first reaction would be that money is a depreciating real value in an inflationary economy and an appreciating real value in a deflationary economy.
I will check whether M1 forms part of GDP.


You are just referring to the destruction of real value in monetray items by cash inflation. The second component of inflation, the value destruction of constant real value non-monetary items NEVER updated (eg. retained income) by the combination of inflation and the stable measuring unit assumption does destroy actual real value in all constant real value non-monetary items never updated (eg. retained income). It is a definite amount over a definite period of time at a definite rate of inflation. Nothing to doubt about. Here is no transfer of real value to any other units. It is simply destroyed in the units never updated.

Herbou (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can Real Value Accounting be cited?

This seems to remain original research.
Please state what is original in what I stated above when everything is (well recognised throughout). Herbou (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It's original research unless the entire argument is made in a previously published document which you cite here (preferably the precise page). --Rinconsoleao (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Policy:
In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals.
Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.


I can only cite the book - which is available on the internet - in which the entire argument is made if you recognise me as an established expert in my field, namely, Real Value Accounting. The entire argument has also already been published in a reliable third-party peer reviewed journal which I can cite and is verifiable on the internet.
I wrote and self-published (after I was offered a publishing contract by Juta Academic Publishers in South Africa but declined it for financial reasons) the book RealValueAccounting.com - The next step in our fundamental model of accounting; which is available as a free download at the Social Science Research Network at [1] and has been downloaded 641 times so far;
Reliable third-party peer reviewed journal: Accountancy SA, South Africa´s leading accountancy journal, published an article by me in which I explained the way the combination of inflation and the stable measuring unit assumption destroys the real value of all companies´ retained income in low inflation economies. The article was peer review three times. [2];
Peer Reveiw: Dr Cemal Kucuksozen, the head of the Turkish International Accounting Standards Department, Capital Markets Board of Turkey, states in public that he, theoretically, totally agrees with me [3] ;
Real Value Accounting blog: You can scrutinize my blog Real Value Accounting at [4];
Patents Pending: I have applied for two patents, namely the Real Value Accounting practice and the Real Value Enabler at the US Patent Office. These are essentially computer programs;
Press Reviews: I have published press releases on the internet regarding real value destroyed by ExxonMobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell destroying billions of US Dollars in retained income real value because of their application of the stable measuring unit assumption;
Comment Letter to IASB: I have submitted a comment letter to the International Accounting Standards Board regarding the definition of monetary items [5] ;
google realvalueaccounting and Real Value Accounting for the rest.
I can only cite the book - in terms of Wikipedia rules - if you recognise me as an established expert in my field Real Value Accounting.
I worked as financial director for two and a half years in Angola´s hyperinflationary economy where I started working on the book in 1995. I researched and worked on the book for 10 years till it was published in 2005.

Do you regard me as an established expert in my field Real Value Accounting?

Herbou (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, one interpretation of retained income and all else in equity is a plug (accounting identity); if there is value lost, (this interpretation says) it has to be due to a decrease in the value of assets or an increase in the value of liabilities (and income, hence retained income, is adjusted to account for this when considered necessary). At any rate, still a measurement issue, not the source of the lost value, if I have interpreted your argument correctly.--Gregalton (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The source of the lost (destroyed) value is the same as in monetary items (eg. money), namely, the fact that real value is destroyed in each unit of account that is never updated.
Retained income is also never updated so the real value of the retained income is destroyed over time at the rate of inflation. Will you be happy to receive USD 100 000 paid out to you 35 years later when 2% inflation has destroyed 51% of the real value of your dividend cheque? You will receive USD 100 000 in dividend but, 35 years later it is only worth 49% of the real value when the retained income first came about and that you would have been legally entitled to on the day it came about if the dividend was paid on the day the retained income came about.


Herbou (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Herbou, please do not include edits relating to your accounting method on the inflation page. That is obviously a conflict of interest and original research. Please use your expertise to make neutral edits that other editors will accept as a consensus view. Please do not cite your own research: let others do that for you if and when your method becomes widely known. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


Real Value Accounting is a significant view that has been published by a reliable source. This is a neutral point of view.

Real Value Accounting is not original thought or original research.
It is published in a credible journal and it is peer reviewed.
It is self-published by an established expert in the subject matter.
It is a significant view that has been published by a reliable source.
The basic feature of Real Value Accounting, updating non-monetary items, has been authorized by the International Accounting Standards Board in 1989 in the authorization of International Accounting Standard IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies.
Real Value Accounting is based on the whole body of International Accounting Standards and International Financial Reporting Standards with the exception of the stable measuring unit assumption.
No-one can dispute that Real Value Accounting is a significant view that has been published by a reliable source. That is a neutral point of view.
The basic feature that Real Value Accounting deals with, updating non-monetary items, has been the focal point of discussion in the accounting profession for at least the last 100 years. Updating is all about inflation. Now it is being said that Real Value Accounting is original thought or original research.
Real Value Accounting is not original research. It is a self-published book by an established expert in the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.103.30.249 (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Causes and effects

Let's try to keep statements about the causes of inflation and the effects of inflation separate. The effects of inflation (problems it causes, and also some possible benefits) are now discussed in Section 3, Inflation#Effects of inflation. Inflation has many bad effects on the economy (costs), and is usually believed to have some positive effects too (benefits). There are also some ways in which inflation benefits some people by hurting others (distributional effects). It would be helpful to reorganize the 'Effects' section with subsections on costs, benefits, and distributional effects. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The causes of inflation are discussed briefly in the introduction, and then in Section 4, Inflation#Causes of inflation and also in Section 5, Inflation#Other theories about the causes of inflation. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Sections 3 and 4 are really badly organized and written. Help please! --Rinconsoleao (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Benefit of inflation

I added this section. Uncontroversial enough I would have thought. Please let me know if you feel the need to delete it. Thanks.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 10:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Inflation IS the universal enemy as far as monetary items are concerned. Each one per cent rise in inflation instantaneously destroys more hunderds of billions of US Dollars in all monetary items throughout the whole economy. It is very difficult to arrive at zero per cent inflation. Two per cent inflation - defined incorrectly as "price stability" - destroys 51% of the real value of all monetary items over 35 years time.
The combination of inflation and the stable measuring unit assumption is the universal enemy as far as constant real value non-monetary items (historical cost items) NEVER updated (eg. retained income) are concerned. Each one per cent rise in inflation destroys even more hunderds of billions of US Dollars in the real value on constant real value non-monetary items NEVER updated each and every year on top of the hundreds of billions of US Dollars currently being destroyed each and every year by current inflation world wide.
Your contribution need not be deleted. The other side of the story need to be added.
You are only referring to one component of inflation, namely, cash inflation. What about the hunderds of billions of US Dollars destroyed each and every year in all companies´ retained income balances world wide in inflationary economies by the combination of inflation and the stable measuring unit assumption?
Revoke the stable measuring unit assumption (as mandated by the International Accounting Standards Board in IAS 29 in hyperinflationary economies) and you stop the second component of inflation forever. That is easy. It is simply an accounting procedure. Arriving at zero inflation is much more difficult to eliminate cash inflation.
Inflation and the stable measuring unit assumption are the two universal enemies.

Herbou (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the way you say: As money becomes worthless. Very well stated.

SmokeyTheCat, do you agree that retained income also becomes worthless over time just like money when it is never updated - as it never was and never is in low inflation economies over the last 700 years since the introduction of the double entry accounting model based on historical costs as a result of the stable measuring unit assumption?

ExxonMobil destroys more than USD 3 Billion per year in their retained income account because of their application of the stable measuring unit assumption.


Herbou (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Feel free to add citation flags, or other credible sources. It would also be preferable, Herbou, if you were to sign in.--Gregalton (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is the deleted part - Dual Destruction of real value in the Economy - in the Effects of inflation section relevant to the article?

A user has requested comment on this page, but there is an error in the RFC template. Please review the RFC template syntax and try again

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add {{templatename | section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time=~~~~~ }}
  • Use the name of the RFC tag name in place of "templatename".
  • Warning: ! and = will not work anywhere in the template, except for parameter separation. {{ and }} might work outside of the time parameter. | works again.
  • Do not edit the RFC list directly; the bot will invariably undo your edits.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments.

Request by a sockpuppet, not a user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.103.91.93 (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Decision by Gregalton: No Discussion of the combination of inflation and the stable measuring unit assumption on Wikipedia. Reason: Nicolaas Smith is a confirmed SockPuppet.

I have two key comments on this: the IP user in question AKA Herbou, et al, has a confirmed history of sockpuppeteering. The source/reference in question is his own self-published work, and he has a clear conflict of interest in promoting this work (including, as noted by the editor himself, patents pending on this methodology).
There is a clear and ongoing problem with this editor understanding basic WP concepts like wp:rs, wp:v, wp:coi, wp:soap and particularly wp:not.--Gregalton (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Since Gregalton wants to make this a soapbox - first time I read that about Wikipedia - let me put the record straight:

Gregalton has a confirmed history of abusing and insulting the contributor Herbou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.55.153 (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So, Gregalton - puppet of yourself (no-one knows who you are, but, you know who I am: I am not ashamed for who I am and what I promote: the revoking of the stable measuring unit assumption), go the whole way and get the contributor Herbou officially banned from Wikipedia since you have already done that by yourself in fact. As they say: puppet power corrupts...

I wonder what Herbou states that you so much want to keep out of Wikipedia?

Oh, and don´t forget: report him to his IP provider too for IP abuse. I´m sure a power puppet like you can get that done too.

Gregalton, I see you actually welcomed Herbou back recently. That was really kind of you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.55.153 (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton, at least Adam Smith qouted a long time ago that people like you are the salt of the earth. How right he was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.55.153 (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton, why did you welcome back to Wikipedia a confirmed sockpuppeteer with little intelligence who has "a clear and ongoing problem with understanding basic WP concepts like wp:rs, wp:v, wp:coi, wp:soap and particularly wp:not.]].--Gregalton (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.55.153 (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This whole saga is about revoking the stable measuring unit assumption, something the accounting profession has been struggling with for at least the last 100 years. However, the first thing that jumps into Gregalton´s mind is: sockpuppeteer.

So, obviously this request for comment is not about revoking the stable measuring unit assumption, but to remind everyone that Herbou is a confirmed sockpuppeteer. That is what this about.

So, let us discuss that then, as the self-puppet Gregalton has decided for us since this article belongs to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.55.153 (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So far we thus have the following:

Gregalton states that we should not add anything to Wikipedia regarding the revoking of the stable measuring unit assumption since Herbou is a confirmed sockpuppeteer.

Since Herbou is a confirmed sockpuppeteer everything about Real Value Accounting, revoking the stable measuring unit assumption and the fact that inflation destroys real value in the economy can never be added to Wikipedia content. Simply because Herbou is a confirmed sockpuppeteer per Gregalton.

The Wikipedia logic or is it the Gregalton self-puppet logic.?

This is still Herbou evidently. Herbou, please sign in. You have been reminded to do this, nicely. As for the various notes above, please note that other editors have attempted to explain the same issues to you. So apparently the issue is not just me.Sincerely, the self-puppet.--Gregalton (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good guy, bad guy Gregalton. This is the attempt at good guy part. The same as the "Welcome back Herbou" part.

Gregalton please always refer to Herbou, not as Herbou (the username has been deleted) but as Herbou - the confirmed sockpuppeteer.

Signed: Herbou - the confirmed sockpuppeteer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.55.153 (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you are clearly the same person, let me simply request: please settle on a username and use it. The only reason I am referring to your past incidents with sockpuppeteering are that you keep using an IP address, which I have interpreted (perhaps incorrectly) as an attempt to avoid recognition. If you use a username consistently, I will not refer to this unless absolutely necessary.--Gregalton (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton, read the title of this Request for Comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.55.153 (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton, there are so many items in discussion here and so many opportunities for you to play your silly games to the detriment of I don´t know what - for my lack of imagination at the moment. There are so many open items that you simply ignore relevant points as and when you want.

Another editor has already pointed out to you that Real Value Accounting is not original research or original thought (Wikipedia term) but self-published work. You simply ignore this fact.

As I say: there are so many open items in discussion that you can just play games all the time. You are good at that. This is very insincere and intellectually incorrect and intellectually dishonest.

I am not really worried about the fact that you want to keep a discussion about revoking the stable measuring unit assumption and the fact that inflation destroys real value in the economy in more than simply monetary items out of Wikipedia. Hundreds of thousands of items are edited into Wikipedia pages based on single third party publications read by hardly anyone or no-one besides the author - but, it has been published by a third party. No general acceptance. Only complying with narrow Wikipedia rules. All of it enters because Wikipedia editors choose to focus on those rules and choose to ignore other rules.

I know what I state about these items is correct. I know I make exceptional claims. I know I discovered exceptional facts - by chance. Gregalton has never been able to prove even one item wrong. He tried very hard but could not succeed in proving anything wrong. But he still does not want it in Wikipedia.

You want to say it is original research. Another editor attempted to point out to you that it is not. You just ignore that.

What is my conflict of interest. The book is available as a free download. The pending patents are just that: pending. Because I applied for patents does not mean they will ever become patents. When you apply for a patent it does not mean you have the patent or are going to get the patent for sure or that they will ever become patents.

I did not know and still do not know how to write the patent claims. So, is just have the requiered first four words of the patent claims in the claims sections. That is why the USPTO had to process the patent claims. They are going to write the patent claims for me in time - if they ever decide I invented something new.

These are in fact pending patents without patent claims as I did not know what I invented at the time I wrote the patent claims. Now I know. I simply invented daily updating. Nothing else. Everything else already appear in IAS 29 or is previously published. I also have the correct definition of monetary items. The one in IAS 29 is partly wrong.

I do not earn one cent from my involvement with Real Value Accounting. So, where is my conflict of interest?

You find it obviously incomprehensible that someone can discover something that is going to be good for everyone and then simply want to bring that to peoples attention. Your interest in economics appears very limited in that sense.

As I said: I know Real Value Accounting will prevail.

I will actually now be much more satisfied when it prevails without the help of Wikipedia now that I have had this very unpleasant experience with you.

I do understand that this problem is not the problem with Wikipedia but with you - Gregalton. You focus on the sockpuppetry of another editor (to err is human) and ignore the valid contribution that editor is trying to make. Another editor has also stated that to me here in Wikipedia. You cannot change, because to change would mean not being Gregalton.

You are the salt of the earth as Adam Smith quoted.

Signed: Nicolaas Smith - my real name. I do not feel the need for a puppet of myself.

I was also known as Herbou who was declared a confirmed sockpuppet by editor Gregalton. Since this request for comment has been changed by Gregalton to a discussion of my sockpuppetry I will add the link to my sockpuppetry history since this is what this request for comment is all about (I have actually forgotton my sockpuppet names) : [6] and here is the link to Wikipedia´s policy on sockpuppetry [7] since this is what this discussion is now all about per Gregalton. Forget the stable measuring unit assumption and Real Value Accounting.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.55.153 (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Signed: Nicolaas Smith (my real name) - the editor with a confirmed history of sockpuppetry also known as Herbou. Deleted sockpuppets are Chimbwidz, Dàrtgnan, Economyspeak, Gideongono, Googlemac, Joeblogger, Miss World and Spectaled Owl.

Wikipedia editor Gregalton has also unilatirally declared that my use of my IP address is sockpuppetry.

Please add your valued comments about sockpuppetry over here.

I think that sockpuppetry is obviously wrong. Obviously editors try to use it as an attempt to get a valid message past Wikipedia editors like Gregalton.

Signed: Nicolaas Smith (my real name) - the editor with a confirmed history of sockpuppetry also known as Herbou. Deleted sockpuppets are Chimbwidz, Dàrtgnan, Economyspeak, Gideongono, Googlemac, Joeblogger, Miss World and Spectaled Owl. Wikipedia editor Gregalton has also unilatirally declared that my use of my IP address is sockpuppetry. [8][9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.103.91.93 (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


At least in this way the valid reason for this request for comment will never be dealt with: another win for Gregalton.

Signed: Nicolaas Smith (my real name) - the editor with a confirmed history of sockpuppetry also known as Herbou. Deleted sockpuppets are Chimbwidz, Dàrtgnan, Economyspeak, Gideongono, Googlemac, Joeblogger, Miss World and Spectaled Owl. Wikipedia editor Gregalton has also unilatirally declared that my use of my IP address is sockpuppetry. [10][11]


Since Wikipedia editor Gregalton has unilaterally declared my use of my IP address as sockpuppetry no-one should really comment on this Request for Comment since, in terms of Wikipedia editor Gregalton´s logic, I am still a sockpuppet.

Signed by sockpuppet Nicolaas Smith (my real name) - the editor/sockpuppet(now I am not sure who I am here on Wikipedia in terms of Gregalton´s logic) with a confirmed history of sockpuppetry also known as Herbou. Deleted sockpuppets are Herbou, Nicolaas Smith, Chimbwidz, Dàrtgnan, Economyspeak, Gideongono, Googlemac, Joeblogger, Miss World and Spectaled Owl. Current sockpuppet: this always changing IP address. Wikipedia editor Gregalton has also unilaterally declared that my use of my IP address is sockpuppetry. [12][13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.103.91.93 (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Boss Gregalton, I will obey your instructions.

Here is my username that I will now use consistently.

SockPuppet Nicolaas Smith (real name) (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

:)

Signed by sockpuppet Nicolaas Smith (my real name) - the editor/sockpuppet(now I am not sure who I am here on Wikipedia in terms of Gregalton´s logic) with a confirmed history of sockpuppetry also known as Herbou. Deleted sockpuppets are SockPuppet Nicolaas Smith (real name), Herbou, Nicolaas Smith, Chimbwidz, Dàrtgnan, Economyspeak, Gideongono, Googlemac, Joeblogger, Miss World and Spectaled Owl. Current sockpuppet: this always changing IP address. Wikipedia editor Gregalton has also unilaterally declared that my use of my IP address is sockpuppetry. [14][15]

Sorry Boss Gregalton, :) The system won´t let me have a username that I can use consistently.

So, I have been removed by the system.

Enjoy yourself on Wikipedia, Gregalton.

I obviously need to occupy my time in another way.

Signed by SockPuppet Nicolaas Smith (real name) - the editor/sockpuppet(now I am not sure who I am here on Wikipedia in terms of Gregalton´s logic) with a confirmed history of sockpuppetry also known as Herbou. Deleted sockpuppets are SockPuppet Nicolaas Smith (real name), Herbou, Nicolaas Smith, Chimbwidz, Dàrtgnan, Economyspeak, Gideongono, Googlemac, Joeblogger, Miss World and Spectaled Owl. Current sockpuppet: this always changing IP address. Wikipedia editor Gregalton has also unilaterally declared that my use of my IP address is sockpuppetry. [16][17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.177.227 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Price Stability redirects here

However I don't think it should. Inflation relates to an increase in prices, whereas price stability covers both sides, whether it inflates or deflates. Confusing for people not familar with economic terms. wholikespotatoes 13:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Phenomenon Explanation

Just saw this sentence:

In the long run, inflation is generally believed to be a monetary phenomenon, while in the short and medium term, it is influenced by the relative elasticity of wages, prices and interest rates.

I assume that "monetary phenomenon" means that economists can't actually pin-point all the direct causes of inflation? If this is correct, or even if it isn't, I believe there should be a little one sentence explanation of what monetary phenomenon means in brackets, just to make it easier to understand. Cheers, Rothery 06:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC).

Calculating the laps of time between which prices double at a certain inflation rate

I am currently doing a project at school on the hyperinflation in Zimbabwe. I have tried calculating how many hours and minutes it would take for prices to double if inflation rate reaches the hypothetical 1.5m% (per year I believe). The problem is that the results I get is 1h42, which is far higher then yugoslavia for example which had a much higher inflation rate.

So I would just like to know the formula to calulate the laps of time between which prices double at a certain inflation rate (in my case, 1.5m%).

Thank you Josellis 02:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

log(2)/log(r+1). E.g., at 10% inflation, log(2)/log(1.1) = 7.72 years. At 1.5M%, log(2)/log(15000) = 0.072 years; about 26 days (note: using 15000 instead of 15001 makes no difference!). Tacitus Prime 04:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Explain

Nothing in this article says what exactly inflation is. Just some mumbo jumbo about Keynes and theories... Why is that? 212.49.81.138 16:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The first two sentences of the introduction say exactly what inflation is. --DanielRigal 16:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Libya and Japan

Why do Libya and Japan have zero or near zero inflation rates in the world graphic? Lycurgus 20:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Japan's inflation rate has been near zero for the last four years. Libya's inflation rate was negative between 2000 and 2004, but has climbed quite a bit since then - the graphic is out of date. {Data source: IMF.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.253.5 (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What about Growth?

How is Inflation distinct from regular old economic growth? Growth obviously increases the money supply, in an organic way, not in a centrally-regulated way. So, what relationship does Growth have to inflation? 76.200.149.33 03:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In a sense, you're right: economic growth increases the money supply by making more "stuff" available - the effect, ceteris paribus, is to reduce prices, which is the opposite of "inflation" as generally (mis)understood (i.e., as a general increase in prices, rather than money supply. There's no catallactic reason why economic growth should have any effect on the latter, if that's what you mean). —Tacitus Prime 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There's some confusion here. Yes, economic growth makes more "stuff" (goods and services) available, but that does not automatically translate to an increase in the amount of money in circulation. Remember, money is not the same as income - it is merely a medium of exchange. It is akin to a chemical catalyst, which facilitates a reaction without directly taking part in it. Economic growth increases the volume of transactions, and thereby increases the amount of money that people want to hold in order to facilitate those transactions (ie it increases the demand for money). If there is no increase in the money supply then an excess demand for money exists, which will cause the value of money to increase. As inflation is essentially a decrease in the value of money, we conclude that economic growth (other things being equal) causes deflation. We may observe that strong economic growth is sometimes accompanied by high inflation. If so, it must be the case that other things are not equal. In particular, economic growth must somehow be causing an increase in the money supply, perhaps by increasing banks' willingness to advance loans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.253.5 (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)