Talk:2021–2023 inflation surge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article name[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Requested move 25 March 2024[edit]

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: Moved to 2021-2023 inflation surge. There is a consensus to move, with a rough consensus on 2021-2023 inflation surge as alternatively suggested. – robertsky (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Moved to 2021–2023 inflation surge due to the dash. – robertsky (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021–2023 inflation → Inflation following the COVID-19 pandemic – "2021–2023" is no longer accurate. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A reasonable name IMO. Will wait to let others chime in. Michaelmalak (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly Oppose. I sympathize with the nominator and agree that the current article name is too vague and rather odd, however the proposed name is arguably worse in terms of ambiguity and seems like a new article in in of itself. EVaDiSh (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inflation is not a global constant. Some countries may stabilize their inflation rate before others. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: there is a consensus to move, however relisting to see if there are any other suitable alternative titles. – robertsky (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, associates inflation with just one of its several causes. Dekimasuよ! 19:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article should be renamed "2021-2023 inflation surge." The inflation rate has declined since 2023 and 'surge' denotes the drastic rate at which the global economy experienced rapid price increases in a relatively short period of time. The title also reflects the original title of the article (excluding year changes) that was maintained for two years. Please let me know your thoughts below. Ideally would like to have a consensus soon. SiennaVue (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposed title; support alternative title - first of all, the inflation occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, albeit after arguable the worst part. But "after COVID" or "post-COVID" is still inaccurate. It would also be probably too much of a generalization to say all of the inflation can be attributed to the pandemic. For example, some economists thing that some of the inflation can be attributed to bad monetary policy in response to the pandemic; if so, that would be human error and not inherently a result of the pandemic. I suggest something like "2021-2023 inflation surge" or "Early 2020s inflation surge" if the inflation episode has been declared over. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "Inflation Surge (2021 start)"? Michaelmalak (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

"permanent"[edit]

SiennaVue, I do not see there is a consensus view of this, or even that "many" economists think so soibangla (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I would think that YOU understand the difference between "inflation", "disinflation", and DE-flation. I haven't seen any economists saying that we can soon expect to be having deflation, not to mention that the Fed explicitly tries to avoid that, so that completely means that added statement is correct and well supported by economists, including Krugman in his NYT columms, if you've been reading those. If we need more sources and a section covering that before it is included in the lead it shouldn't be hard to create such a section. ---Avatar317(talk) 05:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I know the difference, and the article says Analysis conducted by NerdWallet in October 2023 data found that prices for 92 of the 338 goods and services measured in CPI had declined from one year earlier, representing deflation for those items. Maybe I'll pull up that BLS data for an update. Naturally we don't want a pernicious general deflation spiral, but there's nothing worrisome about price declines from an elevated level. if the added statement is correct and well supported by economists, then it should be no problem to provide sources reflecting that, which I would happily accept. but we don't have that here right now. soibangla (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NerdWallet saved me the trouble: in February, 37% of CPI items deflated, compared to 27% in October. A growing number of products are seeing price declines.[4]
NerdWallet links are blacklisted here for some reason, here it is:
nerdwallet.com/article/finance/what-prices-are-actually-deflating
I spot-checked it with the BLS file above soibangla (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, look at how many unions won and locked in historic wage gains just recently; this is just starting another wage-price spiral that isn't going to result in prices going back to pre-pandemic levels. While I haven't seen articles talking about the wage increases locking in higher prices, I have not seen anywhere economists predicting prices will return to pre-pandemic levels, rather I've seen lots of the opposite. ---Avatar317(talk) 06:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to not speculate on what might happen, but I'm happy to entertain sources that show you've seen lots of the opposite from economists. soibangla (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few sources:
“I think people are waiting for prices to return to what they call ‘normal’ — and with the exception of a few things, like eggs — we’re not going to see that. We’re going to see prices stabilize, and that’s likely it,” said Dawn Thilmany, an agricultural economist and professor at Colorado State University.
“People might just be still annoyed that prices are high compared to where they were. Even if prices have stopped going up at the rate that they were, it still sucks if you still are anchored to what things were in 2019,” said Matthew Klein, the founder and publisher of The Overshoot, an economic research service. SiennaVue (talk) 07:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not see there is a consensus or even "many" economists saying this to include in wikivoice that current price levels are permanent, but keep on googlin'. as the great Yogi Berra said, "making predictions is hard, especially when you're talking about the future." many an economist has made predictions they regret, such as the imminent and inescapable recession we're supposed to be in right now.[5]. on wikipedia, I believe in sticking to what has actually happened. soibangla (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia way to handle unfolding events is to use the "As of" template. E.g. "As of March 2024, U.S. inflation remains above 3%". I like the proposed title because then the as of just needs to be updated and not the title. Michaelmalak (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar317, your recent edit confirms that current price levels remain elevated, but it does confirm they will be elevated permanently. It is literally impossible to prove it, and only a handful of analysts speculate it. Earlier here I showed an increasing percentage of CPI components are deflating, now 37%. It is WP:CRYSTALBALL for us to say in wikivoice that current price levels are permanent soibangla (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement in the lead: "Despite its decline, significant price increases across various goods and services sectors relative to pre-pandemic prices persist, which many economists agree is likely permanent." does NOT say or IMPLY *CURRENT* price levels will persist, only that prices will not go back to pre-pandemic levels - YOU are not arguing against what the statement actually says. ---Avatar317(talk) 05:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well, then when did many economists agree this? at the June 2022 peak when inflation resulted in 13.8% cumulative higher price levels than in Feb 2000, or in Feb 2024 when prices are 20% higher?[6]. we at least need to specify when "many economists" asserted this. this is reminiscent of the doom predictions that the growth in the debt could never go negative, and then it did four years straight.[7] And again, "many economists" said we'd be in a recession right now, instead the economy is roaring. The distinction you draw here does little to persuade me that "many economists" agree we will never again see prices like we had before, particularly when sources have not been presented to support the claim. let's include only what has actually happened, not what a handful of analysts have said might happen. soibangla (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last three sources for that statement are from end-2023 beginning-2024, which follows from the preceding sentence: "...and sharply declined in 2023 and into 2024.", so that would be the time we are talking about, but we could specify that time (which is now, today) more clearly if you like.
Separately, predictions are easy, all they need are to be vague enough. The debt going negative was from two factors: Clinton's creation of the alternative-minimum tax (which acted to essentially close lots of tax loopholes) coinciding with, and more substantially, the dot-com bubble, which created lots of artificial wealth (not based on business fundamentals, but on market psychology) for lots of people which they paid federal tax on. Of course prices could go pre-pandemic low again, we could have another pandemic, but that isn't what economists talk about when they predict future prices. (Force majeure). ---Avatar317(talk) 18:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
deficits were already on a downward trajectory in FY1993, leading to surpluses and debt reduction, long before the dotcom bubble,[8] but anyway ...
so far the only source I see presented here of an economist saying we'll never get back to "normal" is a Colorado State University ag economist, and even she hedges with "likely." the rest just seem to acknowledge that prices are "sticky up," which is not the same as permanent. "prices rise like a rocket and fall like a feather."
unless the edit is at least rephrased to include words like "some" and "speculate" and "might," I am prepared to remove it imminently. soibangla (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay - connectivity issues. I am fine with rephrasing the edit to the proposed language. SiennaVue (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
your rephrasing seems fine to me. I have no further issues. soibangla (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar317, your AP addition also does not support permanent. I could have reverted the "permanent" edit immediately, but I chose to discuss first. I am now inclined to revert it because the discussion has failed to support "permanent." soibangla (talk)

SiennaVue, unless at least one source is presented to unambiguously show that many economists assert current price levels are likely permanent, I will remove your edit as unsupported WP:CRYSTALBALL. soibangla (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it implies CURRENT price levels, than can you suggest an alternative wording? I'm sure you'd agree that even without a pandemic and instead a happy 2% yearly inflation, prices would be permanently higher now (though maybe not "significantly") than Jan 2020. ---Avatar317(talk) 05:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no, I would not agree that prices would be permanently higher now as I don't try to predict CPI, which typically goes up but also goes down, sometimes sharply and even deflationarily.[9] we need only to look back as recently as the first three months of the pandemic to see deflation.[10] "permanent" means forever, and that's some real WP:CRYSTALBALL there. soibangla (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the language should be speculative, rather than unambiguous. The proposed edit by @Soibangla has been applied. This seems to be the main issue @Soibangla is addressing. The sources cited unambiguously indicate that the world will not be seeing 2019 prices again. Thus, implicit in that opinion is that the elevated prices across most sectors are here to stay (i.e., 'permanent'). Indeed, @Soibangla's CPI source does indicate some food items have 'deflated', however this appears to be relative only on a 12-month interval not taking into account the late 2021 inflationary surge, nor 2019 prices and before. Using an extreme analogy as an example, if market prices for one good (i.e., dairy) were to have increased in 2021 by 50%, then 'deflated' by 17% in 2022 or 2023, as would be indicated in an annual CPI report, we still have a net increase of 33% relative to 2020. Yes, a deflation occurred, but it is relative. The price of the good is still abnormally inflated, and not likely to return to its 2020 (or 2019) market price, which is precisely what some of these sources indicate. Thus, the new market price is permanent. To return to 2019 prices would require, as some sources indicate, a catastrophic economic event which would actually be more harmful to consumers than they would realize because it would entail consumers saving their money in anticipation that further price drops would occur which would result in massive job losses once companies reduce overhead as consumer demand decreases. This scenario, of course, is highly unlikely. What is likely is continued inflation, as has been throughout history. A small rate is manageable, but the 2021-2023 surge we saw following the pandemic is certainly once in a lifetime. Therefore, it is important to highlight the nature of the prices we are currently seeing today. Even without including it, any reasonable person can look back 5 years and remember when groceries, gasoline, eating out, and getting a mortgage were far less expensive. Including some language in the article's introduction assuring readers that we are in a different time now is critical. As indicated, I agree with the proposed edit. SiennaVue (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason for the constant increase in prices in certain products are shortages in production. Several of the European coountries have long depended on importing wheat from Ukraine, and the war disrupted that supply chain. Resulting in rising prices for bread, beer, and other products where wheat is necessary. In recent months, we have seen rising prices for cocoa beans because both the Ivory Coast and Ghana (the two leaders in cocoa bean production) have had their agricultural production reduced due to poor weather conditions. Dimadick (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the Fed ignores food and gas prices when it looks at core inflation. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCE inflation rate[edit]

FYI, the PCE inflation rate, which the Fed prefers to measure inflation, was 2.5% in February.

It's getting real close to the Fed's inflation target of 2.0%, and it is below the 2.7% in March 2021 when the surge was imminent.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1jsyl soibangla (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the last article I read in the WSJ said that other indicators looked worse than the Fed expected and that it might have to re-evaluate whether it does any rate cuts this year. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well yeah, delaying cuts would push it below 2%. if factors other than inflation looked worse, they'd cut now soibangla (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As I mentioned previously, inflation rate does not necessarily correspond to current prices. They are completely different. Again, why it is critical to have this distinction for readers to understand in the introductory section. SiennaVue (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021–2023_inflation_surge&oldid=1218204520"