Replies

"Just the same, we really need to say this is either "our" definition because it's the "only" definition. Your saying it's "my" definition suggests that you've got one. Do you?"

I've already told you "my" definition several times. Here's an excerpt from #118 above: "Let me offer my preferred definition first: Deflation = a state of falling prices." You might prefer: "Deflation is a persistent fall in the general price level of goods and services." It's a "clean" definition, without all of the assumptions and speculation about the causes and possible effects of falling prices built in.

I'm fully aware that it's become common for deflation to be defined, with the built-in negative connotations. And, yes, our language continually evolves; so no one can say the definitions you prefer are "wrong". However, I will say that they aren't helpful. If deflation is "bad" by definition then deflation is bad. No one can argue with that. (Although, the "dismal science" is already chock-a-block with words that mean bad things -- such as "depression".) If we're discussing "X", where "X" is a "persistent fall in the general price level of goods or services"; then we can discuss whether "X" is always a bad thing, or whether it can also be a good thing -- depending on other factors. I hold to the latter view.

"What we're still missing though is the "good times" part. The '65 - '99 block was an era mostly in economic contraction (from US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions) while since 1899 there were three times as many months of expansion than contraction months."

I had considered preempting the need for that comment, by posting a follow-up to my own post -- but I thought that might be just too much for a forum such as this. Anyhow, you're right as far as you go. There was a lot of turmoil then (to begin with, the Civil War had just ended). A whole lot of stuff was going on. And there were recessions, panics, and depressions (I have never said that deflation always equals good times. As you've noted yourself; I said: "deflation is not necessarily a bad thing". See the difference?). What you're missing is that, overall, there was an incredible increase in real wealth, and real purchasing power, during that time. This increase in real wealth resulted from incredible gains in productivity (mostly due to railways). The increase in productivity also lead to lower prices (i.e. deflation).

Ever since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (at least), the "western world" has experienced previously unimaginable increases in productivity, growth in real wealth, increase in spending power, decrease in prices -- all facets of the same gem. The Tech revolution kicked things up by several notches. Our economic system has adjusted to those changes fitfully, more often than smoothly. When our money supply, credit, etc. don't adjust well enough to falling prices (deflation) we get deflationary gaps, deflationary spirals, that have led to depressions. We have shorter-period business cycles, where we experience relatively frequent inventory-clearing recessions. As you yourself point out, we're getting better at smoothing out those bumps on the road to prosperity.

I said: "deflation is not necessarily a bad thing"

--and I'm saying that if it isn't actually a bad thing then it'll sure do until a real one comes along.

All the numbers are online open to all; we can compare the record of historical inflation rates to historical records on unemployment and gdp growth. We've got unemployment back to 1890 and real gdp back to 1790. Of course you're more than welcome to look up the numbers yourself, but until then this is what we've got:

yr/yr price trend	real per capita gdp	average unemployment rate

inflation	3%	6%
deflation	0%	11%

Deflation means no-growth double digit unemployment that should have been full employment with solid growth. Deflation is definitely a bad thing.