Talk:2021–2023 inflation surge

Include discussion of AI, crypto demand in 'Shifting demand' subsection?

Here's the latest draft (and here's the new shifting demand subsection) Superb Owl (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I would say WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL - unless sources say AI will/is projected to increase electricity demand enough to increase prices and thereby cause inflation than including that is WP:OR. Electric cars and converting home HVAC to heat pumps will likely drive a 10x greater increase in electricity demand, but since that is happening so slowly we're not seeing effects yet; businesses are dumping BILLIONS yearly into purchasing AI compute power.

"Electric vehicles could account for 6-8% of total electricity demand by 2035, up from 0.5% today" [1] ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

A source in your draft page says: "Electric vehicles and heat pumps are driving consumer electricity demand higher, while industrial onshoring and the rise of data centers and artificial intelligence are also putting upward pressure on prices, the analysts said." [2] - So maybe the reality is "all of the above" are causing increased electricity demand. If supply can't meet it, we get inflation. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

top chart

SiennaVue, I really have to say I prefer the original chart because the article is not about comparing this episode to previous cycles over decades, it's about comparing this episode to conditions immediately preceding it, and by jamming too many values into one chart it makes it more difficult for readers to examine the values over the relevant time period. this is not the inflation article, it's about a specific limited aberration. soibangla (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I know you do, and you and I have had this discussion before. The chart over decades is absolutely appropriate. Readers need to know what is true and what is not, especially in light of the talking points currently being spewed from one side of the political aisle saying that the 2021/2022 surge was the "highest" inflation in years, when in fact, this is not the case. [3] Without any historical context as to previous cycles which were far higher than recently, readers will fall prey to misinformation. Historical context is important. SiennaVue (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

welp, JSwift49 seems to agree with me.[4] what do others think? soibangla (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I do agree with soibangla here. I think there’s certainly a place for historical context/a longer term chart in the article, but it’s about a specific aberration, shouldn’t the lead graph focus on that? If it’s notable enough to have an article of its own, then it’s not like a dedicated graph will give it unwarranted emphasis. JSwift49 21:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with this statement, except that the ongoing presence of misinformation amongst readers (voters) and political circles justifies that additional historical context is needed at the outset. We know that statistically speaking, most lay readers who arrive to this article will probably not read beyond the lead. There is an inverse proportion between the length and organization of an article and reader engagement. Therefore, the lead should be a brief summary of the topic (which it does, but probably could be cleaned up a bit further), followed by brief a visual representation of the topic that can easily reconcile the subject and any potential misinformation. SiennaVue (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't agree because a lead graph, in my opinion, should be a visual representation of the article topic – regardless of political context. But I would support the lead text more explicitly comparing this surge to other surges in history that were worse/similar, so people don't get the wrong idea. JSwift49 22:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

sentence #2: Many countries saw their highest inflation rates in decades soibangla (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with SiennaVue here; I generally always like to give the reader more context and information when possible, assuming that maybe this is the first ever article about inflation that a reader reads. As long as the additional data doesn't cause confusion, my vote is for the additional context of the inflation of the 1970's to be included, as often it is mentioned in current news articles about the rate, and how the Fed responded to it and what that caused in the '70's. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with assuming that maybe, because the broader inflation article exists. this article is about a specific episode, the first in some 40 years, that btw turned out to be transient after all (2.6% today[5]). As long as the additional data doesn't cause confusion but it actually does, because it distracts readers from this transient episode with really old data. this article is not the place to discuss, in this chart, previous episodes and how Arthur F. Burns and Paul Volcker handled them. this should be discussed in text, as it already is in the lead: Many countries saw their highest inflation rates in decades soibangla (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Many countries saw their highest inflation rates in decades leaves readers clueless about the QUANTITY associated with that comparison. "A majority" is 51-100%, but there's a huge difference between those two bounds. To see/show the quantified difference is much more informative, and the comparison to the 1970's is discussed in MANY sources; this illustrates that well-sourced comparison.

As a side comment - I also disagree with you that this was transient; if it was, then the Fed would not have needed to take ANY action; but they did, they increased interest rates. They delayed taking action because they called this inflation "transient". ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

we long had a table right under the chart showing changes in inflation rates for many countries/regions but it got dropped deep into the article.

the comparison to the 1970's is discussed in MANY sources in what context? the typical some say this episode raises concerns of pernicious inflation for a decade like in the 1970s leading to stagflation and a deep recession? I saw many variants of that. this episode was nothing like that, but I understand the motives of some to portray this as the beginning of a decade of hyperinflation followed by the next Great Depression and we're all gonna die and blah blah blah.

I have more to say about transient but little interest in typing all of it. soibangla (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

"...I saw many variants of that. this episode was nothing like that, ..." - Right, so don't you think it is good to have a graph which illustrates that in an easy to see and understand manner? Which shows that the integral of/area under the inflation curve was MUCH smaller for this episode? ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

not in this article, no, because the consequence is the values during the relevant period get squished together and less easily visualized. maybe an editor can add a comparative recessions paragraph/table in the body, but up top I suspect most readers want to immediately see at a glance and scan what happened in this episode, because that's the subject of the article, not History of world inflation surges. soibangla (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how these individual values are of any importance. I would think that people who care about what the SPECIFIC rate was at a SPECIFIC time would get that info from a TABLE of values, but clearly you hold a different opinion. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

yes I do, which is why I include a link to the original interactive FRED chart so readers can hover and inspect values, change the date range, do transforms etc. basically, a user can change the chart into the version you prefer on the fly, while leaving the chart in the article unchanged. soibangla (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Electoral Impacts

Looks like it would be fitting to add a section about the sweeping anti-incumbent electoral impacts of this. Would give the reader some perspective. or Would a new page entirely be a good idea? Zzendaya (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

If you can find sources, I think this would be a good section to have. I have heard that it was a major cause of incumbents losing worldwide. (Of course all developed nations and their central banks took the same approach to COVID recovery) so that result would be expected. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'll make a new section. This is my first time doing this, so I would appreciate some help! Zzendaya (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok I made somewhat of a skeleton of a new section, would love if you could add on to it and make it better. Thank you! Zzendaya (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Deficits cause inflation orthodoxy not supported emperically.

This article flatly states, "Deficit spending increases inflation, as detailed in the fiscal theory of the price level." and goes on to cite Milton Friedman (now recognized as as a zealous idealogue). While Friedman supported his theories with elegant, but highly abstract, models they were based on deeply flawed assumptions (Rational Person, Crowding Out, etc.) and grossly oversimplified concepts of competitive markets. While it is likely that deficits contribute to inflation under some circumstances the unequivocal assertion that they always cause it is contradicted by decades of high deficits/low inflation in the US from the mid 1980's-2022. This assertion should be moderated, if not removed, entirely. 2603:7080:873F:AB00:7575:A709:B244:69E8 (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

"they were based on deeply flawed assumptions" About a quarter century ago, when I was a student, our economics teacher emphasized that Friedman and his type of pseudo-economists built purely theoretical models that contradicted the empirical data. I don't think much has changed about Friedman's poor reputation. Dimadick (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)