Talk:2021–2023 inflation surge

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.
	This article was accepted from this draft on 26 December 2021 by reviewer S0091 (talk · contribs).

Economics Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: History Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Mid-importance).

Europe Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brazil Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

COVID-19 Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article name

The article is currently named "2021–2023 inflation" after this edit moved it from "2021–2022 inflation surge". First, simply calling the article 'inflation' is confusing as it makes little grammatical sense and something I don't believe any other article covering periods of inflation on Wikipedia is called. Second, a question remains on what years should be included in the title: worldwide inflation peaked in 2022 and has steadily decreased ever since but inflation is still higher than average even into 2024. I am not officially proposing any alternative, but I would like to know what other editors think.

Personally, I have no issue re-adding 'surge' to the title as it was a surge which ultimately began to subside in 2023. Other names could be 'period of inflation' or something similar as brought up in the last discussion of the topic in August 2023 here. On this point the WP:COMMONNAME in sources would be useful. Yeoutie (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONNAME would be "Bidenflation" -- which is actually a misnomer given that the cause was COVID policy under Trump that idled workers and disrupted supply chains.

I think "2021 inflation surge" would be the most appropriate, even though the peak was in 2022. Most of the surging part occurred during 2021. The reality is we'll probably see "above normal" inflation for many years to come. So would we update the title every year?

In the end, the complexities of the data (surge, peak, subsiding, persistence) can be borne out in the article body. We shouldn't try to explain the whole thing in the title. Michaelmalak (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There are many sources talking about inflationary events NOT in 2021; like inflation in 2022 and 2023 and still now in 2024, so I think it should at least be named "2021-2024 inflation", and can be renamed every year as long as the occurring inflation is significant enough to be talked about in the media as a problem (unlike the two decades before COVID). ---Avatar317^(talk) 07:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree that 'surge' should be added to the title. SiennaVue (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree strongly about including surge.
1) 'spike' is a more common term 2) surge is a loaded term and implies permanence, but inflation is not 'surging' or growing starting in 2023, but in decline.
I also agree with removing 2023 from the title and keeping at 2021-2022 Superb Owl (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok with surge, but it should be 2021-2022 soibangla (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree 2021-22 is important. SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we should limit this to 2021-2023 and start new articles if further crises develop or there is an interest in a series of inflation articles, one for each year or time division. I support '2021–2023 inflation surge'. It's direct to the subject of the article. Stick to the subject and not get diluted. If we were doing a series of inflation articles every year, then I would leave out surge. Alaney2k (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Naming an end year is like trying to predict the stock market. The surge will end when inflation drops consistently below 3%, and we don't know when that will be.

Here's another suggested title: Post-COVID Inflation Surge. Michaelmalak (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the renaming the article to '2021-2023 inflation surge'. Not only is it direct to the subject of the article, but also it serves as a reminder for how quickly the event in question was, from the sharp inflationary rise in late 2021 to early 2022, and the subsequent drop to roughly below 3% in mid-2023 (see my latest edit showing the most recent Feb. 2024 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics showing U.S. inflation rate dropping to roughly 3%). The "surge" aspect of the title denotes what was truly a remarkable event not just in the United States, but worldwide, caused largely of course by the rippling effect of the pandemic, which arguably ended in May 2023 when the WHO discontinued public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC). SiennaVue (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

CPI has never fallen below 3% after 2021 [1] We are still feeling the effects of the pandemic and response. And Michaelmalak (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Backing you up with some AP and PBS articles noting that inflation remains an issue. Please note that the AP is referring to it as 'stubbornly high inflation': [2] [3] . Fephisto (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with both of you. And I think a critical distinction must be made between the actual inflation rate, which has in fact decreased, and the result of being left with high prices. Indeed, they can be mutually exclusive, and frustratingly so. While the inflation rate may have slowed, it is still increasing while we are still stuck with astronomically high prices across most goods and services which unfortunately are likely here to stay. Perhaps this distinction can be incorporated somewhere in the article. SiennaVue (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposals here

• Post-Covid inflation SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

2021–2023?

The inflation surge is still ongoing. The article title should be updated to “2021–2024 inflation surge.” PencilSticks0823 (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

the surge ended in June 2022 when the inflation rate peaked at 9.0%

the inflation rate has since declined and is now 61% below that peak

inflation remains elevated at 3.5%, compared to the pre-surge all-time historical average of 3.4%, though well above the pre-surge 20-year average of 2.1%

so we still have an anomalous inflation episode, but the surge is well behind us

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1mIhP soibangla (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

January 2023 inflation was 6%, so the notion that the surge ended in 2022 is absurd. Michaelmalak (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

in January 2023 the inflation rate was seven months into its downslope. we can't just select an arbitrary inflation level and deem it "surge-y," because who's to say 5% isn't surge-y? the surge peaked in June 2022, so that's when it ended, but inflation has since remained elevated soibangla (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

With such confusion ("surge" vs "surge-y") perhaps the word "wave" should be used instead. E.g. "Inflation wave beginning in 2021". Michaelmalak (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I like that "wave"....we've had lots of disagreement over the proper article name, "inflation wave" is the best term I've heard so far. What we need is a "large-tent" type of phrase. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind wave, as inflation swelled, crested and fell, but it's kinda odd for a title. I dunno, maybe it works soibangla (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be some support in news articles for using the term "inflation wave" or "waves of inflation". Seems like a reasonable compromise. 71.11.5.2 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I will propose a move to "2021-2023 inflation wave" as that seems to be the median position here. I would prefer 2021-2022 (or ideally 'COVID-19 inflation wave') but others have suggested 2021-2024 so this seems to be an ok compromise for now Superb Owl (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 1 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) JJP_Master (she/they) 19:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

---

2021–2023 inflation surge → 2021–2023 inflation wave – Surge suggests rising inflation, but inflation started declining in 2022 though was still significant in 2023, just not increasing. Superb Owl (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

No comment on the main question, but I changed a hyphen to a dash above, presuming it was a typo. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

My preferred title is "2021-2024 post-COVID high inflation(ary) period" - because inflation is still high, and in the news more than it had been in the 20 years pre-COVID, just not surging. It is still considered a matter of concern for the Fed. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from but inflation is arguably not high right now being at just over 3% is better described as 'moderate' and not 'high' Superb Owl (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

the Fed's preferred inflation metric was 2.51% in June, just a tick above its 2.5% target[4]

OUT: "the committee remains highly attentive to inflation risks"

IN: "the Committee is attentive to the risks to both sides of its dual mandate" of prices and employment [5]

a Fed funds cut appears imminent

I don't see much talk in the press about inflation lately, apart from those who have political motivations in a presidential election year soibangla (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

From last week [6] Michaelmalak (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"even though grocery prices have largely leveled off in the last year"

got more? again, the higher level of prices caused by the inflation surge of 2021-2022 does not mean continuing high inflation today

there are perceptions, and there is reality, as discussed in this article. this article is about inflation, not new higher price levels, that is a discussion that belongs elsewhere soibangla (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

But the news reflects people's PERCEPTIONS, as these quotes show: "Mayonnaise prices, for example, have surged 43% over the past three years, according to global research firm NIQ, also known as NielsenIQ.

“What consumers are reacting [to] and feeling is the cumulative effect of inflation," so prices ARE relevant to this discussion, as the Reliable Sources discuss them in relation to this inflation.

this article is about inflation, not new higher price levels, that is a discussion that belongs elsewhere - well then maybe this article needs a more inclusive title, since the news discusses both as a co-mingled phenomenon (which is how people experience it). ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

What you are describing is a price surge not an inflation surge. I agree there is a place for discussion of price here, but I want to make sure we use the right adjective for each. Also, inflation expectations are not high and are declining further even further in the near future... Superb Owl (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Inflation is a synonym for the delta between the consumer price index across different points in time. So, in effect, yes, price surges, when viewed on the macroeconomic scale of a CPI, are in fact inflation surges. SiennaVue (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There was a request for this just a few months ago when the title was named "2021-2023 inflation." The majority of editors in the discussion voted for "2021-2023 inflation surge," the title that had remained in effect for almost 2 years. I don't think there should be another discussion about this. The "surge" connotation is appropriate in this context and should reflect this time in history for everyone. SiennaVue (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• This formal request is premature - please withdraw. SPECIFICO talk 08:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
• requesting a withdrawal of this move request - misjudged the amount of consensus on the move. Looks like it needs more discussion first Superb Owl (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

deflation happens

prices do fall

Here’s the deflation breakdown for June 2024 — in one chart[7] soibangla (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes Avatar317, of course prices fall in recessions, it's all part of the normal business cycle, hence why higher price levels aren't "permanent." soibangla (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you somehow not WANT to believe what all economists understand and believe: that recessions are generally considered BAD (the Fed's employment mandate/balance), and that the Fed generally does everything it can to PREVENT recessions. Did you miss the thousands of times the phrase "soft landing" was used in the media in the last 2+ years? "Deflation — a widespread drop in prices — typically makes people and companies reluctant to spend and therefore isn’t desirable. Instead, economists say, the goal is for wages to rise faster than prices so that consumers still come out ahead." - from one of our sources.

With the Fed controlling the economy, and them holding this belief, do you really believe that they will create or allow the economic conditions which would result in prices falling to pre-pandemic levels? Will wages fall also? Unions have locked in wage gains. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

are you actually suggesting I think recessions are good? members of the FOMC aren't prescient magicians, the economy will do what it does regularly, which includes falling into recessions, as well as having unforeseen inflation surges that the Fed didn't get in front of early enough. of course, some prominent kooks (who shall remain unnamed) believe the Fed causes recessions and we'd never have another one if the Fed were abolished. soibangla (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Title: Change to: 2021-2022 inflation surge

Per Dictionary.com, surge means increase. Inflation stopped increasing in 2022 even if prices were increasing above baseline through most/all of 2023. If we go with 2021-2022 inflation surge, we may not have to revisit this discussion again and can start another article if inflation surges again (which it hasn't since 2022). Superb Owl (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned in an earlier discussion here, "surge" is ambiguous. Does it mean trough-to-peak, or does it mean trough-to-trough? Reiterating my proposed title: "Inflation wave beginning in 2021" Michaelmalak (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that the problem here is that per guidelines, we are supposed to name an article based on WP:COMMONNAME. But in this case, per sources, there isn't one. The only word or name common to all our sources is "inflation". For dates, from the most recent source I added (found by soibangla), whatever "it" (subject of this article) is, "it" is still being talked about in the news today: 2024.

My suggestion is a large-tent phrase like "post-COVID high inflation(ary) period" withOUT the dates; and I also support Michaelmalak's suggestion "Inflation wave beginning in 2021" or "2021 forward inflation wave". ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

2021-2022 inflation surge remains the most accurate title and I continue to support it. soibangla (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

"price gouging" politics

The whole section on price gouging cites think tank after think tank in what seems like an effort to bolster a narrative that's more political than economic. If we remove the think tanks from the section, what is left and what do those sources say about the significance of corporate profits in this calculus? Think tanks are the very definition of an unreliable source on here -it is self-published research designed specifically for some type of activism. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I see just two references to think tanks, among many references. soibangla (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Technically that's correct -the main references are mostly not think tanks except in two instances (but again, think tanks are not RS and so that number should be zero). However, when we peel back a lot of the journalism in that section, we see commentary from numerous think tanks and non-economists. For example, the content on the meat industry cites this source[8] and quotes Ricardo Salvador. Who is Salvador?

Ricardo Salvador, a scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group."

And this is really the issue here. I would request a literature review to determine how the "price gouging" narrative has been received by mainstream economists, and then perhaps rewrite the section so that it's more clear on where this information is coming from. Without investigating each source, readers have no way of telling if they're reading the opinion of an economist or some advocacy group, as both opinions appear side-by-side as if they carry equal weight. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I see one source that kinda nudged the needle on my biasmeter a bit, so I opted against including it, though someone else did and I don't see a compelling reason to remove it, as its findings seem generally corroborated by other sources. Salvador is with the Union of Concerned Scientists and was cited by a reliable source, and I am unaware of controversies surrounding that group. The discussion seems well-sourced and balanced to me. What do others think? soibangla (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so the source that cites Salvador also quotes an academic economist, who is not quoted in that section. This CBS source is also cited in that section, which relies entirely on reports by advocacy groups.[9]. I strongly believe that if we remove all these think tanks and advocacy groups from the equation (even removing their opinions from the news sources and focus solely on what economists are saying) we'd be left with more objective economic sources like these[10][11][12] -which either dispute the 'greedflation' narrative or completely ignore it. This to me implies that this subject is fundamentally political theater.

I also don't understand the argument. By definition, inflation is when there's too much money and credit chasing a smaller quantity of goods and services. And also by definition, price gouging is a response to this phenomenon of the supply of money and consumer demand. This is what Furman meant when he said the argument is technically correct, but is analogous to blaming gravity for a plane crash. And for the record, I also think the Republican argument about stimulus spending is also political nonsense -both government spending and price gouging contributed to inflation, but were not primary causes. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

well, gouging was scoffed-at by many early on, and that was reflected in the article early on by a reference to "Democratic politicians" alleging gouging, notably Elizabeth Warren, but later data and analysis came out that supported the idea soibangla (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not that there are issues with the Union of Concerned Scientists, but rather that they are not qualified as a reliable source for economics. This is a highly technical field to the extent where advocacy groups have a very easy time manipulating statistics in ways most journalists would not be able to understand. Take markups as an example. There is actually no direct accounting relationship between "corporate profits" and inflation (profit itself breaks down into several accounting identities, including retained earnings that firms put aside for future investment, which are never 'zero'), but inflation is directly affected by markup growth. One way that this happens is when there's a market concentration or an increase in monopoly power, which is the conclusion that's been reached by various advocacy groups, and the argument that's being made by certain politicians. But another way that markups change is when companies anticipate future increases in their marginal cost of production, which has nothing to do with monopoly power. Since this is essentially an unobservable factor, it takes more sophisticated cross-industry analyses to determine the actual cause, rather than the instinct to assume markup growth automatically has something to do with market leverage. See[13].

Yes, I'm aware that Elizabeth Warren began blaming corporate greed for inflation from the very beginning. There was one economist, I forget who, who once compared her to a guy with a hammer who sees a nail everywhere he looks. The issue here is that while 'price gouging' is being taken more seriously than it was earlier (and there is still no consensus), the section in question could use better sourcing and more technical nuance. It is one thing to say markup growth is a significant contributor to inflation, and quite another to shout "corporate greed!" and "greedflation!". There is still no evidence for any of these political arguments. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Corporate greed is just a popular short-hand term for the phenomenon of firms increasing their margins beyond the extent of their cost increases, which we go into some depth about with reliable sources, some of which dismiss it while others affirm it. I anticipate we'll see more as others chew on the data. I don't see a problem and I will step aside and let others opine. soibangla (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, same here. I'll let others jump in but just to reiterate the point that the arguments politicians are making specifically have to do with monopoly power (the president even saying that "capitalism without competition is exploitation"), but that this isn't what the evidence indicates is going on with markup growth (see link 13). So while the actual contribution of markup growth to inflation is itself disputed, even conceding this point there's still no evidence it's caused by market concentration. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

alternative narrative?

SiennaVue is it your understanding there has been little to no measurable improvement in the inflation rate and price levels in recent quarters? I ask because some of your edits in recent days seem to suggest a downplaying of the improvements in ways that seem to me dismissive of facts and may appear to be POV. soibangla (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The worldwide inflation rate has decreased, as have prices in some sectors, but overall prices across large sectors such as energy compared to five years ago remain elevated, in large part due to the aggressive spike in late 2021 and mid-2022. Even if inflation dips to 1%, prices are still rising, but at a much slower pace. As we know, 3% remains above the Federal Reserve's annual target, but it is much lower than the 2022 spike. I think it is important to recognize the general economic improvement since 2 years ago, but one editor seemed to exaggerate this by suggesting that elevated prices were irrelevant. From a lay reader's perspective, this appeared to be a POV as well and required editing. SiennaVue (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

again, the article is about the inflation rate, not price levels, though the latter can be discussed, but it is not the central focus. prices are almost always increasing, even when the inflation rate is 1%[14]. and while most prices continue to be at elevated levels and rising (as they almost always do), many prices are actually declining, rather than merely seeing a slower inflation rate. some of your edits seem to downplay that. the Fed's preferred measure, PCEPI[15], is right at the upper bound of its target range and they are now contemplating rate cuts. I am aware that many laypersons confuse the inflation rate with price levels, but nevertheless the article is about the inflation rate, and we can offer asides to make sure readers understand the distinction, but the solution is not to upplay price levels here because that would not be an accurate portrayal of the article subject. as this is first and foremost a technical article, we need to be purists in our approach and not cater to peoples' feelings about prices. there's another reason why we should not downplay the improvements since 2022, which I may discuss later. soibangla (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I take your point. And again, as I have indicated before, inflation is a synonym for consumer prices measured across different points in time, so there should be at least a brief discussion about consumer prices. It would be fallacious to assume that one cannot discuss inflation without discussing consumer prices, as they are complementary and without measuring the latter, inflation has quite literally no meaning or definition. I suppose the same logic would apply to the notion that one cannot write an article about gravitational collapse (i.e., the event at the end of a star's life) without discussing gravity.

In any case, I do agree that there needs to be a clear distinction between inflation (avg. consumer prices over time / CPI) and some price sectors which remain elevated despite the decrease in inflation. After all, readers coming to this page expect to see this information. I do, however, think that the current introduction is appropriate.

I appreciate your feedback. Any further thoughts? SiennaVue (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It still does not sound as if you understand that Soibangla's point. SPECIFICO talk 04:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the lead bit about price levels. It's irrelevant and uninteresting for many reasons too complex, irrelevant and uninteresting to discuss here on talk. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Uninteresting is NOT a policy reason for removal, and prices are a key element for PRICE inflation; after all we aren't talking about inflation in waistlines (obesity epidemic). The inflation rate is called the Consumer PRICE Index. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

the inflation rate is derived from raw CPI and this remains a common source of confusion among laypersons, as well as a common source of deception among some pushing a political agenda. I have observed this over and over for many years, including neat tricks like this[16] to claim we now have 19.2% inflation under Biden. soibangla (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Avatar, I said irrelevant - that's the NPOV policy reason. Please self-revert. BRD is best. SPECIFICO talk 18:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that price levels shouldn't be the central focus of this article, (and they are not) but a short statement summarizing what has been said in multiple sources: "consumers seem to want prices to return to pre-pandemic levels, and are unhappy about prices" but that economists say that this will probably not happen, and generally is not the preferred outcome (wages to rise more over time rather than prices fall), definitely deserves MENTION in the article.

It is worth mentioning that the behavior of the economy at large is dependent on the psychology of all the market participants, and this is essentially everyone, so the psychology of the market actors deserves to be mentioned, as it is in Reliable Sources. (the economist who talked about this died just recently, and had a Nobel.) ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

as I've said, I don't object to discussing price levels, just not as the primary thrust of the article, but recent edits seem to have played-up price levels in a disproportionate way, and to suggest that the prices for everything remained elevated and continue to increase albeit at a slower rate, though last October prices for 27% of CPI items declined, and declines have continued in subsequent months. it's not as if we need to have a recession to see any price declines. soibangla (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You are completely right: "it's not as if we need to have a recession to see *any* price declines" and I did not intend to word it that way, or imply that. And the reason I put that in the article is because (as Jonathan f1 stated below) no one expects the price of anything to return to 1950's levels, and similarly, with continuous small price increases from "normal" inflation, in totality, prices also won't return to five year old prices, even if we never had this burst of inflation. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

If nobody believes it, we do not need to discuss it, do we? Let alone reinstate it without consensus when discussion is underway. SPECIFICO talk 22:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Your earlier comment and subsequent comments seem to show that you have no interest in discussing it and want to simply remove it and be done with it. I reverted because I believe that can generate more discussion about this topic, and hopefully improve our coverage/explanation. I think that the previous series of removals/re-additions/edits showed that this content should be discussed. ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I still think the lead is appropriate in distinguishing the inflation rate from consumer prices, but perhaps this could be made clearer. However, the notion that the lead should not at all discuss consumer prices when this metric is unequivocally a component of calculating inflation is erroneous and suggests a POV. Whether it may espouse feelings relating to any administration is not a reason for nominating its removal. In fact, research shows it was likely the loose fiscal policy of the previous administration (not the current) that caused the much of the recent inflationary spiral in the United States.[17]

As of writing this reply, the lead has 275 words and only refers to consumer prices in relation to pre-pandemic levels twice. If some editors are nominating this deletion, then they should do the same for any discussion of prices throughout the rest of the article, including the last paragraph in the lead referring to oil prices, natural gas, fertilizer, and food prices, "exacerbating the situation." Although I suppose that would be difficult given that the two topics are corollaries of each other. SiennaVue (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Our inflation article can address the definition of the term and its relation to prices. There seems to be some misunderstanding here as to the meaning of "price". At any rate, with no consenus for the delation bit, ONUS says it should stay out and certainly should not be in the lead. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's very simple -price inflation over time is calculated in the same way as the future value of money earning compound interest, where the interest earned in one period creates a new balance that earns that rate of interest the next period (assuming the rate is constant), and so on. The inflation 'rate' is the rate of change at which prices increased over a specific time interval, the ratio of the difference between the interval's final CPI reading and initial CPI, divided by initial CPI (and of course, CPI is only one way to measure inflation, and not a perfect one). The distinction is illustrated nicely in the chart soibangla linked: a loaf of bread probably cost around $0.25 in 1950 vs. ~$2.00 in 2024. The growth of the base over that period will obviously be much larger than the rate at which the price of bread changed over a shorter interval of one year. The value of bread also hasn't changed, as wages rose dramatically over the last 74 years, and so the demand for bread and the average person's ability to buy it hasn't changed.

I agree that this talk of "prices" returning to "pre-pandemic levels" is confused and should probably not appear in the article without clarification from RSes. Economists are aiming for a normalized *annual* rate of inflation and wage growth, not an unreasonable expectation that price levels are going back to where they were "5 years ago". At some point it's like believing the price of bread will go down to its 1950 level (or even prices 20 years ago). The issue is also politically sensitive considering many Republicans are using "pre-pandemic prices" as a benchmark to criticize the Biden/Harris administration. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there are plenty of RS's which discuss this; what do you think would be a better way to word this statement to mention people's expectations of "pre-pandemic prices" being an unreasonable consumer expectation?

"Despite a worldwide decline, some economists have speculated that higher consumer prices are unlikely to return pre-pandemic levels and may remain elevated. Economists state that for prices to return to pre-pandemic levels would require a deflationary period, which is usually associated with recession, though prices for many consumer goods and services were declining by October 2023 as the economy continued growing." ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

If that statement is backed by RSes, I think it sounds perfect. Or is this a direct quote from an RS and you want to paraphrase it? I think another issue here is that an economy may be growing but not necessarily growing evenly across every sector. In the grand scheme of things, if an economy is growing so are prices, and ~2% inflation growth is usually the annual target. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The sentence is a paraphrase of multiple sources:

...inflation is coming down. The actual problem here is prices. ... “Inflation in the US is falling relatively quickly compared to all of our other peer countries, and we have the strongest growth out of the recession,” said Felicia Wong, president and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank. “But people don’t just want falling inflation numbers, they actually want deflation.” Deflation probably isn’t in the cards (and the rub is we don’t want it to be).

...“That surge of inflation really reflected a very high growth of prices,” said Rob Rich, director of the Center for Inflation Research at the Cleveland Fed. “Since the pandemic, and since we started raising interest rates, we’ve actually seen the inflation rate slow. Now ... it doesn’t mean that prices have fallen.

... “There’s a couple prices people might track that might decline, and some things might normalize here and there. But, in general, the level of spending in the economy is not going to decrease, and the level of spending supports a level of goods and prices,” said Mike Konczal, director of macroeconomic analysis at the Roosevelt Institute. “That is unlikely to have a huge shift unless people start spending a lot less, at which point, there would be a recession.” “Episodes where prices actually fall can be really, really damaging to an economy” Prices tend to be “downwardly rigid,” Konczal added, meaning they tend not to go down (the same goes for wages).

Even with the steady slowdown in inflation, prices are still nearly 17 percent higher than they were three years ago, a source of discontent for many Americans. Though some individual goods are becoming less expensive, overall prices will likely remain well above their pre-pandemic levels. ... Many Americans might still favor having the government take steps not only to slow inflation but also to try to reduce overall prices to where they were before the pandemic. ... Economists, though, uniformly caution that any attempt to do so would require a significant weakening of the economy, resulting from either sharp interest rate hikes by the Fed or tax increases. The likely consequence could be a recession that would cost millions of jobs. David Andolfatto, an economist at the University of Miami and a former Fed economist, said it is better for wages to rise over time to allow people to adjust to higher prices.

Most Americans,” Cook said, “are not just looking for disinflation” — a slowdown in price increases. “They’re looking for deflation. They want these prices to be back where they were before the pandemic. ... I hear that from my family.” ... Deflation — a widespread drop in prices — typically makes people and companies reluctant to spend and therefore isn’t desirable. Instead, economists say, the goal is for wages to rise faster than prices so that consumers still come out ahead.

However, consumers shouldn't expect a broad and sustained fall in prices across the U.S. economy. That generally doesn't happen unless there's a recession, economists said. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

all of that is ancillary interpretation, indeed speculation, tangentially related to the article subject: the observed inflation rate.

it's interesting, but it's about future expectations, and as we've recently learned from nearly unanimous recession expectations, such expectations can be wildly wrong[18]. I favor focusing on what we actually know. I trust historical data, but projections? not so much. that's why economics is the "dismal science." many make lucrative livings predicting the future of the economy and markets, but it doesn't seem to put a dent in their careers when they are repeatedly proven wrong.soibangla (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Would you apply this rationale to other areas of science or just the 'dismal science'? A lot of science makes future projections based on existing theory and probability, and whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant to the fact that their methodology is widely accepted as scientific. While I haven't kept count, there've been so many times when my weather forecast has been wildly off (claiming bad storms all day and it's actually sunny), but it never dawned on me to think meteorology is a joke and to just ignore it. Most of what Avatar quoted is so trivial as to be uninteresting. What's going to cause a future "broad and sustained fall in prices across the entire US economy" other than a recession? Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

evidence has been presented in this article of oligopolies — Big Oil, Big Auto, Big Food, from wholesale to retail — exploiting this inflation episode to pad their margins to lock-in permanently higher prices, and those higher prices drop straight to their bottom lines as pure profit. this is nirvana for firms, and they can get away with it knowing the current presidency will take the fall for it, because everything is always the government's fault, and suckers buy it. this was a rare episode that enabled firms to do this and they pounced on it, and it remains to be seen if consumer pushback will cause firms to lower prices on a large scale in lieu of a recession forcing it. but by last October, 27% of prices declined despite continued economic expansion. we cannot yet conclude that price levels are now permanent, as economists notably "speculate," and this should not be upplayed in an article about the inflation rate that is down sharply from its peak two years ago. soibangla (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

So that is the NARRATIVE or POV you are here to push? A decline in prices of 27% does NOT mean they declined to PRE-PANDEMIC levels, as RS's talk about. How about we concentrate on what RS's say rather than what you WANT to say? Wikipedia isn't here for you to tell things as you want. ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

this article is about the inflation rate. some seek to make it about other stuff that is related, though not on-topic, using heavily emphasized and cherrypicked sources that admittably include speculation, which to me suggests POV pushing soibangla (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

oh, and just parenthetically, lest anyone suspect I'm some sort of commie for criticizing corporate behavior, I am a lifelong hardcore capitalist who went to business school and financed M&A for many years. I just dislike oligopolies that tend to be anti-competitive. so there's that. carry on. soibangla (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

All this is hogwash, irrelevant, UNDUE, and not very well sourced. Our article on the National Zoo does not present speculation as to a future visit by the Easter Bunny. SPECIFICO talk 02:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The National Zoo isn't an academic discipline that involves reasonable speculation about what's going to happen in the future. Why do so many people who edit the economic space on here either hate the discipline or completely fail to grasp how analogy works? Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a red harangue. Please review NPOV. SPECIFICO talk 11:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll also add this -I'm not convinced Avatar's content is due myself. While there are many articles where future speculation is necessary (many economic topics, and topics pertaining to climate change), the title of this article is "2021 -2023 inflation surge", which implies that it is over with, even though it seems to be an ongoing topic of discussion, at least in politics. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The title is currently flagged as inaccurate, and can be changed, and has been repeatedly discussed as to what is should be (see above). Whatever EVENT this article is about, it is clearly still happening, so that just means our title is problematic, not the content. ---Avatar317^(talk) 04:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I see it now. Well, it looks like that discussion fizzled out, so what do you think is a more appropriate title? Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

at what point will you conclude this event is no longer happening?

when the CPI inflation rate is ~2%, or when all prices revert to some arbitrary level? soibangla (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why you'd think I expect prices to 'revert to some arbitrary level', but I've explained in some detail that this isn't reasonable, achievable, or desirable. 2% annual rate growth obviously means prices will never revert to some 5 year old level.

As to when it's over -I don't know, it just may be a thing of the past. I'm willing to accept that the continued discussion over 'inflation' is mainly political and probably wouldn't even be a topic in politics if there weren't an election coming up. Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, if that was directed to Avartar, disregard my last message. Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathan f1: My name suggestion is a large-tent phrase like "post-COVID high inflation(ary) period."

@Soibangla: It is not for ME to conclude that this is not longer happening; it is when RS's no longer talk about this. I agree with Jonathon that the current inflation might not be in the news so much if there wasn't a presidential election (though the recession threat probably would be); on the other hand, if the US falls into recession, I would bet the news would continue to connect the post-covid-inflation-reduction-measures with causing the recession, and that this would all be reported on as connected.

To try to be more clear, it is the continuing coverage that makes this event ongoing; if the news was "Trump talks about inflation" that would be one thing, but when news stories exist (on the liberal media side, not just conservative media) talking about inflation connected with price shock, this event is still ongoing. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Outside of political media, what are economists saying? Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Soibangla and I have tried to convey and somewhat to explain the views of mainstream economists. SPECIFICO talk 09:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Deloitte reference

The Deloitte source, currently #11, is not RS. It's a self-published puff marketing/PR piece to project non-existent economics savvy to the accountants' clientele. The content so sourced should be removed and background framing should be taken from RS economic commentaries.See here...Kalish, Ira; Wolf, Michael (February 18, 2022). "Global surge in inflation". Deloitte. Archived from the original on June 20, 2022. @Soibangla: who appears to have added this content and who may now, 2 years later, know of better sources or content regarding background. SPECIFICO talk 11:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)