This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 2009-2014. 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. |
"The main cause of hyperinflation is a massive and rapid increase in the amount of money that is not supported by a corresponding growth in the output of goods and services. This results in an imbalance between the supply and demand for the money (including currency and bank deposits), accompanied by a complete loss of confidence in the money"
This is simply not true, the fact is that in countries with hyperinflation, the printing presses aren't able to keep up with the DEMAND for paper money.
The driving force of hyperinflation is an unwarranted expansion of credit, usually by the central bank.
In 1920's Germany the discount window of the State bank was open to most businessmen.
When the government decided to end inflation they closed the discount window to businessmen and inflation quickly subsided.
Hyperinflation occurred because the government wanted it to happen. It was a deliberate policy decision.
In the financial crisis in the US in 2008 the FED briefly opened the discount window to entities other than member banks.
This provided liquidity to an economic system that was having liquidity disappear. Done judiciously this prevented the crisis from becoming worse. Jimmyreno ( talk) 04:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)jimmyreno
Why go to great lengths to explain a very simple concept? The theory of supply and demand states that modifications to price will alter volumes at offer and volumes demanded so that for any given supply forces and demand forces, there should always be a point in the middle which is a price stability attractor. As a side note, a lot of the bad economics in the world reifies that price balance point by assuming that it is a specific target, rather than just the balance of current forces. A decrease in price is supposed to decrease the amount offered and increase the amount desired. This allows any shift in volume to be rebalanced by market forces. In general, this holds up, but there are a few examples where it doesn't. The most famous, of course, are hyperdeflation and hyperinflation. If a nation as a whole has a work population that is living very close to it's fixed costs, then any reductions in wages will cause income to fall below fixed costs. This means that rather than having the normal effect of decreasing the supply of labor on the market, these wage reductions actually *increase* the amount of labor on the market. The simple physics rule goes, when the forces stop pointing in opposition and start pointing in the same direction, the result is, you move FAST!. There is, of course another balance point you can reach when the most marginalized workers have lost their homes and there place in society, then you can reach a more normal equilibrium among the participants that are left. Similarly, when a country has certain "required imports", eg. factories for some essentials got bombed, or when they have foreign debt payments, eg. Reparations for war, then you have a fixed number of dollars foreign currency you have to raise every month. If you are using a large portion of your budget meeting that, then you are in the uncomfortable position where if the price of the foreign currencies is high and you cannot get as many foreign dollars from your allotted budget, the increase in price actually *increases* the amount of local dollars you spend on foreign currency. Recall that the law of supply and demand says that if the price goes up then we are supposed to want less of it. Once again, as any freshman physics student can tell you, when all the forces point in the same direction, the result is, you move, VERY FAST!. This is really just basic math. 98.198.203.106 ( talk) 04:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I sometimes encounter those who think they might come out ahead in hyperinflation. Suggest adding after-effect to Germany 1923 showing effects documented in Ferguson (1975, 2010): Late 1924 government decrees called for partial restoration of government bonds (2-1/2%, delayed until ww-1 reparation paid) partial restoration of mortgages and other debt (25% in 1925 -- if not paid off early, effectively multiplying mortgage balance of 5 years before by 25,000,000,000,000) (see Ferguson, p226-7)
Generally, it also needs to be more clear that food supplies -- especially in cities -- become very tight as farmers stop selling for worthless cash, and unemployment skyrockets, once hyperinflation becomes established. Government benefits may fade to nothing before receipt.
Also, in the italicized section about the USA avoiding hyperinflation with close calls in the Civil and Revolutionary wars, it would be appropriate to mention that the Confederacy also sharply inflated - trading at 10:1 against the greenback as early as 1863 Skb999 ( talk) 09:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I have been thinking in adding/changing in the "Overall impact" of inflation just under the heading on the country, to demonstrate the chain of currency devaluations over their time in hyperinflation. Maybe also include the current exchange rate (if applicable).
For example, for Angola it could looks like this:
Impact: 1 Kwanzas (AOA) = 1,000,000 Kwanzas Reajustados (AOR) = 1,000,000,000 (Novo) Kwanzas (AON/AOK)
Exchange rate: 1 USD = 90.00 AOA (February 2010)
Angola went through its worst inflation from 1991 to 1995. In early 1991, the highest denomination was 50,000 kwanzas. By 1994, it was 500,000 kwanzas. In the 1995 currency reform, 1 kwanza reajustado was exchanged for 1,000 kwanzas. The highest denomination in 1995 was 5,000,000 kwanzas reajustados. In the 1999 currency reform, 1 new kwanza was exchanged for 1,000,000 kwanzas reajustados.
Of course, the text explaining the currency change remains (include links to the actual note from Ron Wise's site?) I'd like to know people's opinion/objection about this Rubycored ( talk) 11:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The story about the hyperinflation in Chile is wrong. The inflation was only 163% under Aliende in 1972 and more than doubled to 375% during the first year of the Pinochet’s rule. The neoliberal experiment failed and Milton Friedman was invited in Chile to save it by requesting even more free market, privatization and restriction of the state functions. Despite the strictest adherence to the neoliberal policies, the economy of Chile crashed and faced hyperinflation once more in 1982. Then, Pinochet broke up with the strict neoliberalism and dismissed the economic advisers and ministers educated in the Friedman’s Chicago school. Only then the Chilean economy saw growth.
See Naomi Klein “The shock doctrine” Penguin Books (2008) p.75 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.96.247.10 ( talk) 15:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Indonesia really ought to have its own section; overall inflation was on the order of 1:1,000,000 over a span of very roughly 40 years. There were two currency revaluations during this period. Most people with any amount of cash moved it into US Dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.92.91 ( talk) 13:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Since talk sections were all jumbled up, I finished 2007 archive and created 2008-2009 archive. There may be a few unsettled issues in either, so if you decide to do a thorough rewrite it might be worth it to check. This is likely to be a hot topic in the future, so someone improving this article would be great. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
There were multiple problems here. I fixed some of them.
The first bulleted paragraph described "100,000,000,000,000" as "100 thousand million", with a ref explaining that 1 long billion = 1 short trillion. But 100,000,000,000,000 is a million million on either scale. I fixed the text.
The ref seems more confusing than helpful. It might be useful, if the article were to explain that this bill was called 100 billion in Germany, but the article uses short scale throughout and refers to the bill as 100 trillion. Anyway, I couldn't think of how to make it better, so I left it.
The second bulleted paragraph breaks from the short scale to talk about "hundred million billion pengő" and "one milliard b.-pengő" without any explanation that these are long billions. Again, this is confusing, but I couldn't think of a good solution (the bills actually have the words "billion pengo" on them, so you can't just call it "trillion" the way the previous paragraph does with the papiermark), so I didn't fix it.
The second bulleted paragraph also said that the 100,000,000,000,000 Z$ had "the greatest number of zeros shown." But at least one other note, the 500,000,000,000,000 YUO, had the same number of zeros, was larger overall, and preceded the Zimbabwe note by over a decade, so it's disingenuous to give the credit (such as it is…) to the Z$. See Banknotes of the Yugoslav dinar, under the section "1993 dinar". (Note that that article uses long scale, so it's called 500 billion instead of trillion.) This notes was issued on 23 Dec 1993 and withdrawn with the fifth revaluation on 1 Jan 1994, so it didn't even last two weeks (the whole YUO currency only lasted 3 months), but it was circulated. I fixed this one by changing the sentence to refer to both notes. -- 99.175.102.94 ( talk) 07:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Do there exist 500,000,000,000,000 YUO note?I know only a 500,000,000,000 YUO note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.20.233.131 ( talk) 00:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The second sentence above makes no sense because the premise is wrong - BiH did not experience "hyperinflation" at any point in 2005. At the end of that year they introduced value-added tax which, combined with imported fuel price increases, caused an inflation spike, but one measured in larger single digits, per [1] [2]. This can't qualify as an example of hyperinflation. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 01:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Who deleted Turkey? Böri ( talk) 11:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Same question. That was one of the leading modern examples in hyperinflation Energon ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC).
You don't have to divide by 100 because the original inflation rate is percents == hunderdths. If you do divide by hundred, you have to add a percent sign. 67.194.199.224 ( talk) 04:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Context? You multiply by 100 to get percent, not divide... maybe the comment just said it backward? 98.198.203.106 ( talk) 04:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
For Example:
-- Arcudaki ( talk) 09:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Debt is more than fixed rate borrowing. For example inflation linked debt and inflation linked pensions. Hyper inflation does not get a government off these debts. As fast as it inflates the debts get bigger. The article needs to distinguish between fixed rate borrowing, and inflation linked debts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.93.233 ( talk) 21:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The section of the post-WW2 Hungarian hyperinflation contains this claim:
The link* ( http://heindorffhus.motivsamler.dk/shoebox/frame-HungaryInflation01.htm) is an article by the librarian, Peter Kr. H. Bech, of the Danish Philately Club Library ( http://kpk.dk/biblioteket), and is not referenced, nor does it seem to be a scholarly work. It is also concerned with philately rather than currency (the hyperinflation is used to explain the rising value of Hungarian stamps; not surprising considering the author), and as such it simply claims:
That's it; no sources, no references, nothing. As currently sourced this is definitely NOT a work of 'a historian', but an unverified claim made by a philatelist(!)
It would appear that the claim on the website is based on an article (Ungarns inflation 1945 - 46) in Nordisk Filatelistisk Tidsskrift (Nordic Philately Magasine), 2000, No. 1, pp. 23 (see: http://kpk.dk/system/files/Index%20NFT%201960%20-%202010.pdf pp. 11, search for 'bech'). Not exactly where I would expect seminal economic/political history research to be published, although Mr. Bech may have had secondary sources in this original article.
However, unless someone can provide verifiable sources for this claim, I would advise its removal.
As it currently stands it is not 'some historians' , but rather 'one philatelist' who 'believes' ...
Mojowiha ( talk) 20:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
In addition to a reference, shouldn't a mechanism be provided as well? To me, this sounds about as valid as a story of someone who hates consumer00ism, so they conspire to make cheeseburgers greasy and give Americans health problems. Or for a more humorous version, see "The Adventures of Isabel" by Ogden Nash. I fail to see any connection between marxists wanting the collapse of the middle class (assuming they want that, which I think is pretty contestable) and marxists actually having leverage to cause the collapse of the middle class.
I have removed the following paragraph because: (1) it does not pertain to the factual description of the section describing hiper/high inflation processes. (2) Lacks factual accuracy and is highly subjective [for instance, inflation reached 55.7% in 1951 during Peron's presidency, 123.6% in 1959, 182.9% in 1975, 444% in 1976...]; (3) the impact of political orientation on actual inflation rates is an extremely controversial and highly disputed topic, and its inclussion in a factual section is misleading; (4) the claim that a given economic policy was intended to "create chaos" is entirely subjective and cannot be sustained with appropriate documentation; (5) Professor Escudé is not an expert on hiperinflation, and his alleged remark has little relation with the topic at hand. In other words, the paragraph is misplaced, is not supported by the data, is highly subjective, and presents highly controversial topics as facts. I consider that it must be removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atamola ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
− Ellen Brown, author of Web of Debt, admits that the left-oriented policy that Argentina had had since 1947, when Juan Peron came to power, did actually create inflation. But the inflation did not become a national crisis until during the eight years that followed Peron's death in 1974. During these years the inflation rose to 206 percent, due to a "deliberate radical devaluation of the currency of the new government, along with a 175 percent increase in oil prices". This devaluation was, as she sees it, done with the hidden purpose of destabilizing the economy (to create a chaos). And it was, in any case, not caused by a sudden and massive increase in the printing of money by the government. She also cites Professor Escudé who writes that this devaluation led both to "the astronomical high inflation" and "to the spread of a speculative financial system that became a hallmark of Argentina's financial life". citation needed
This new paper out of Cato should be utilized to provide data on various episodes of hyperinflation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.152.209 ( talk) 18:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Cagan´s defintion of hyperinflation, namely 50% monthly inflation, is not the generally accepted definition. The Hanke - Krus table of world hyperinflations is thus not a valid study. It does not include hyperinflation in Turkey and Venezuela.
The IASB´s defintion of hyperinflation, namely cumulative inflation of 100% over three years, is the valid definition followed by all accountants world wide.
I think the Hanke-Krus table should be replaced with a table including Turkey and Venezuela.
ShinyEarRing ( talk) 15:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
That would be doubling of prices over three years which is equivalent to 26% per year compounded, which is less than 2% per month compounded. Businesses would factor that 2% into their monthly price increases, and unions would demand wage increases of 2% per month, and banks would have to pay more than 2% per month interest to attract deposits, but that is not hyperinflation. Maybe the IASB meant 100% per year if that rate continued for at least 3 years, i.e. not a one-year crisis. Doubling of prices each year is 6% per month compounded. Severe inflation yes, but not hyperinflation.
Cagan´s definition has not been implemented by any company or government since April 1989, the date the IASB authorized IAS 29. It will NEVER be used by any company or government in the future. All companies and all governments today follow the IASB´s definition. It is thus very clear that the IASB´s definition is the generally accepted defintion of hyperinflation.
I suggest the Hanke-Krus table be removed from the article. I am absolutely sure there is a Wikipedia rule to quote and to follow to do this. I just don´t have the time to look for the rule. ShinyEarRing ( talk) 09:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Where is the record of my wretched country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.218.67.253 ( talk) 15:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I just removed 12k of "According to Cagan" from the article. I also restructured the lede.
Regarding the lede, I think it's best to start with a general definition of IASB before going into the specifics of what the IASB defines it as. As noted elsewhere in the article, economists use hyperinflation as a term in other meaning that the definition of it for accounting purposes.
Second, the IASB does not regard 100% annual inflation as an absolute. It's noted in the article that that's one of the indicators on inflation but not the only one, and that inflation approaching 100% can be classified as hyperinflation.
Finally, adding the "Cagan's currently not generally accepted definition" to the start of so many sections, before the inflation statistics are given, creates the appearance that we're using Cagan's definition of inflation in compiling the statistics, not just his definition of hyperinflation.
For those reasons, I think we need to step back and look at the restructuring of the article in pieces. That's why I've reverted to the previous status quo, and even though I'm not proposing the changes, I'm opening discussion. — C.Fred ( talk) 15:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
@ MonteDaCunca:, @ C.Fred:--Whether Cagan is accepted or not, the country-specific sections now look silly and awkward. Why not lead the entire country section with a note that says something like "The methodology used to calculate hyperinflation in the countries marked with an asterisks below was based on a definition by Cagan that is not generally accepted any more." Or something like that? Or use the new methodology to calculate it for each country and be done. Or put the data in using both methodologies? Right now though the article is confusion. If Cagan isn't used, why have the country listed at all? Or is this page being used to make an argument only economists, and not people reading an encyclopedia, care about? Prof. Mc ( talk) 13:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: MonteDaCunca ( talk · contribs) is a sock of banned user PennySeven ( talk · contribs). LK ( talk) 08:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not a sockpuppet. MonteDaCunca ( talk) 13:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Lawrencekhoo now moved the article back to 1956. It is now simply about The History of Hyperinflation As Seen In 1956. And theres is nothing anyone can do about it except Lawrencekhoo. Lawrencekhoo or anyone else please name one - only one - government - that today follows Cagan's definition of hyperinflation. MonteDaCunca ( talk) 16:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Please find consensus regarding how to present Hyperinflation definition. Jonpatterns ( talk) 17:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Cagan's definition was never removed from the Definitions section. Please state the date when it was removed from the Definitions section and by which editor.
The other sections - 4 to 7 - very clearly based on Cagan's definition (which has been superseded since 1989 by the IASB's definition as the generally accepted definition) were removed since they currently still do not comply with WP:NPOV. The information in those sections was copied from the Hanke-Krus Hyperinflation Table in the case of Section 4 that lists 39 subparagraphs. Sections 4 to 7 should be clearly marked as based on Cagan's superseded (outdated) definition. It should also be prominently stated in the article that the IASB's definition is being followed by 147 governments implementing IFRS - basically the whole world economy - since 1989 and that it is the generally accepted definition of hyperinflation. It should also be prominently stated that not a single government follows Cagan's definition since 1989. MonteDaCunca ( talk) 19:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MonteDaCunca ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
For those who are interested, I've start an SPI case on MonteDaCunca here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PennySeven. Please contribute there if you have evidence. Thank you, LK ( talk) 07:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Cagan´s definition is the generally accepted definition in the world economy.
The IASB's definition is not used in the world economy.
See Section 4, 5, 6 and 7.
This is very clear that this article is based on Cagan´s definition. The IASB's definition is not used at all. It should be removed. No-one uses the IASB's definition. 78.130.81.221 ( talk) 19:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
BZTMPS ★ Thank you for your reply. The source is the article: the Hanke-Krus Hyperinflation Table is based on Cagan´s definition.
Section 4 is based on Cagan's definition: 100% copied from the Hanke-Krus Table.
Section 5 is based on Cagan's definition.
Section 6 is based on Cagan's definition.
Section 7 is based on Cagan's definition.
The Hanke-Krus Hyperinflation Table is based on Cagan´s definition. The table is itself externally linked in the article. Please see the table. Prof Steve Hanke is the number one expert in the world on hyperinflation. See the external links on his article page. That should surely be more than enough external sources for the fact that Cagan's definition is the generally accepted definition of hyperinflation because Prof Steve Hanke uses it as shown in the table and in all the sub-sections in the article. This clearly demonstrates the external sources that there is no doubt that Cagan's definition is the generally accepted definition of hyperinflation. All governments follow Cagan´s definition. 78.130.81.221 ( talk) 19:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I have posted an SPI case here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MonteDaCunca, though I've probably posted it incorrectly. Either way, it's clear that the same person has returned. Prof. Mc ( talk) 19:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Huon, you do understand English. You are not a baby. I did not ask you about economists´ use of the definition of hyperinflation. I asked you about the use by any country of Cagan´s definition. Please supply the name of one country that uses Cagan´s definition today. When you do not know the name of one country that uses Cagan´s definition since it is impossible to know that name since no country uses Cagan´s definition today, then any reasonable person would simply admit that no country uses Cagan´s definition today since that is a fact and the status quo. Everybody except you know that. I thus ask you again, Huon, please tell me the name of one country that uses Cagan´s definition of hyperinflation. Huon, I am not asking you about what economists use: I am asking you to tell me the name of one country that uses Cagan´s definition. Huon, again I ask you very formally here on Wikipedia: please name one country that uses Cagan´s definition of hyperinflation today. Thank you for taking part in this discussion. Odereiugif ( talk) 22:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a reminder: This page is regularly trolled by sockpuppets of PennySeven (banned for disruption a few years ago). If you see anyone behaving non-collaboratively while pushing to reject the hyperinflation is >50% per month definition in favor of hyperinflation is >100% over 3 years, it's likely a sock of PennySeven, as only confirmed socks of PennySeven have ever pushed such a view here. If you see a new editor like that, especially if they show WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, I suggest reverting per WP:DENY and filing a report at WP:SPI. LK ( talk) 08:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 2009-2014. 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. |
"The main cause of hyperinflation is a massive and rapid increase in the amount of money that is not supported by a corresponding growth in the output of goods and services. This results in an imbalance between the supply and demand for the money (including currency and bank deposits), accompanied by a complete loss of confidence in the money"
This is simply not true, the fact is that in countries with hyperinflation, the printing presses aren't able to keep up with the DEMAND for paper money.
The driving force of hyperinflation is an unwarranted expansion of credit, usually by the central bank.
In 1920's Germany the discount window of the State bank was open to most businessmen.
When the government decided to end inflation they closed the discount window to businessmen and inflation quickly subsided.
Hyperinflation occurred because the government wanted it to happen. It was a deliberate policy decision.
In the financial crisis in the US in 2008 the FED briefly opened the discount window to entities other than member banks.
This provided liquidity to an economic system that was having liquidity disappear. Done judiciously this prevented the crisis from becoming worse. Jimmyreno ( talk) 04:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)jimmyreno
Why go to great lengths to explain a very simple concept? The theory of supply and demand states that modifications to price will alter volumes at offer and volumes demanded so that for any given supply forces and demand forces, there should always be a point in the middle which is a price stability attractor. As a side note, a lot of the bad economics in the world reifies that price balance point by assuming that it is a specific target, rather than just the balance of current forces. A decrease in price is supposed to decrease the amount offered and increase the amount desired. This allows any shift in volume to be rebalanced by market forces. In general, this holds up, but there are a few examples where it doesn't. The most famous, of course, are hyperdeflation and hyperinflation. If a nation as a whole has a work population that is living very close to it's fixed costs, then any reductions in wages will cause income to fall below fixed costs. This means that rather than having the normal effect of decreasing the supply of labor on the market, these wage reductions actually *increase* the amount of labor on the market. The simple physics rule goes, when the forces stop pointing in opposition and start pointing in the same direction, the result is, you move FAST!. There is, of course another balance point you can reach when the most marginalized workers have lost their homes and there place in society, then you can reach a more normal equilibrium among the participants that are left. Similarly, when a country has certain "required imports", eg. factories for some essentials got bombed, or when they have foreign debt payments, eg. Reparations for war, then you have a fixed number of dollars foreign currency you have to raise every month. If you are using a large portion of your budget meeting that, then you are in the uncomfortable position where if the price of the foreign currencies is high and you cannot get as many foreign dollars from your allotted budget, the increase in price actually *increases* the amount of local dollars you spend on foreign currency. Recall that the law of supply and demand says that if the price goes up then we are supposed to want less of it. Once again, as any freshman physics student can tell you, when all the forces point in the same direction, the result is, you move, VERY FAST!. This is really just basic math. 98.198.203.106 ( talk) 04:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I sometimes encounter those who think they might come out ahead in hyperinflation. Suggest adding after-effect to Germany 1923 showing effects documented in Ferguson (1975, 2010): Late 1924 government decrees called for partial restoration of government bonds (2-1/2%, delayed until ww-1 reparation paid) partial restoration of mortgages and other debt (25% in 1925 -- if not paid off early, effectively multiplying mortgage balance of 5 years before by 25,000,000,000,000) (see Ferguson, p226-7)
Generally, it also needs to be more clear that food supplies -- especially in cities -- become very tight as farmers stop selling for worthless cash, and unemployment skyrockets, once hyperinflation becomes established. Government benefits may fade to nothing before receipt.
Also, in the italicized section about the USA avoiding hyperinflation with close calls in the Civil and Revolutionary wars, it would be appropriate to mention that the Confederacy also sharply inflated - trading at 10:1 against the greenback as early as 1863 Skb999 ( talk) 09:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I have been thinking in adding/changing in the "Overall impact" of inflation just under the heading on the country, to demonstrate the chain of currency devaluations over their time in hyperinflation. Maybe also include the current exchange rate (if applicable).
For example, for Angola it could looks like this:
Impact: 1 Kwanzas (AOA) = 1,000,000 Kwanzas Reajustados (AOR) = 1,000,000,000 (Novo) Kwanzas (AON/AOK)
Exchange rate: 1 USD = 90.00 AOA (February 2010)
Angola went through its worst inflation from 1991 to 1995. In early 1991, the highest denomination was 50,000 kwanzas. By 1994, it was 500,000 kwanzas. In the 1995 currency reform, 1 kwanza reajustado was exchanged for 1,000 kwanzas. The highest denomination in 1995 was 5,000,000 kwanzas reajustados. In the 1999 currency reform, 1 new kwanza was exchanged for 1,000,000 kwanzas reajustados.
Of course, the text explaining the currency change remains (include links to the actual note from Ron Wise's site?) I'd like to know people's opinion/objection about this Rubycored ( talk) 11:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The story about the hyperinflation in Chile is wrong. The inflation was only 163% under Aliende in 1972 and more than doubled to 375% during the first year of the Pinochet’s rule. The neoliberal experiment failed and Milton Friedman was invited in Chile to save it by requesting even more free market, privatization and restriction of the state functions. Despite the strictest adherence to the neoliberal policies, the economy of Chile crashed and faced hyperinflation once more in 1982. Then, Pinochet broke up with the strict neoliberalism and dismissed the economic advisers and ministers educated in the Friedman’s Chicago school. Only then the Chilean economy saw growth.
See Naomi Klein “The shock doctrine” Penguin Books (2008) p.75 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.96.247.10 ( talk) 15:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Indonesia really ought to have its own section; overall inflation was on the order of 1:1,000,000 over a span of very roughly 40 years. There were two currency revaluations during this period. Most people with any amount of cash moved it into US Dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.92.91 ( talk) 13:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Since talk sections were all jumbled up, I finished 2007 archive and created 2008-2009 archive. There may be a few unsettled issues in either, so if you decide to do a thorough rewrite it might be worth it to check. This is likely to be a hot topic in the future, so someone improving this article would be great. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
There were multiple problems here. I fixed some of them.
The first bulleted paragraph described "100,000,000,000,000" as "100 thousand million", with a ref explaining that 1 long billion = 1 short trillion. But 100,000,000,000,000 is a million million on either scale. I fixed the text.
The ref seems more confusing than helpful. It might be useful, if the article were to explain that this bill was called 100 billion in Germany, but the article uses short scale throughout and refers to the bill as 100 trillion. Anyway, I couldn't think of how to make it better, so I left it.
The second bulleted paragraph breaks from the short scale to talk about "hundred million billion pengő" and "one milliard b.-pengő" without any explanation that these are long billions. Again, this is confusing, but I couldn't think of a good solution (the bills actually have the words "billion pengo" on them, so you can't just call it "trillion" the way the previous paragraph does with the papiermark), so I didn't fix it.
The second bulleted paragraph also said that the 100,000,000,000,000 Z$ had "the greatest number of zeros shown." But at least one other note, the 500,000,000,000,000 YUO, had the same number of zeros, was larger overall, and preceded the Zimbabwe note by over a decade, so it's disingenuous to give the credit (such as it is…) to the Z$. See Banknotes of the Yugoslav dinar, under the section "1993 dinar". (Note that that article uses long scale, so it's called 500 billion instead of trillion.) This notes was issued on 23 Dec 1993 and withdrawn with the fifth revaluation on 1 Jan 1994, so it didn't even last two weeks (the whole YUO currency only lasted 3 months), but it was circulated. I fixed this one by changing the sentence to refer to both notes. -- 99.175.102.94 ( talk) 07:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Do there exist 500,000,000,000,000 YUO note?I know only a 500,000,000,000 YUO note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.20.233.131 ( talk) 00:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The second sentence above makes no sense because the premise is wrong - BiH did not experience "hyperinflation" at any point in 2005. At the end of that year they introduced value-added tax which, combined with imported fuel price increases, caused an inflation spike, but one measured in larger single digits, per [1] [2]. This can't qualify as an example of hyperinflation. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 01:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Who deleted Turkey? Böri ( talk) 11:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Same question. That was one of the leading modern examples in hyperinflation Energon ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC).
You don't have to divide by 100 because the original inflation rate is percents == hunderdths. If you do divide by hundred, you have to add a percent sign. 67.194.199.224 ( talk) 04:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Context? You multiply by 100 to get percent, not divide... maybe the comment just said it backward? 98.198.203.106 ( talk) 04:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
For Example:
-- Arcudaki ( talk) 09:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Debt is more than fixed rate borrowing. For example inflation linked debt and inflation linked pensions. Hyper inflation does not get a government off these debts. As fast as it inflates the debts get bigger. The article needs to distinguish between fixed rate borrowing, and inflation linked debts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.93.233 ( talk) 21:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The section of the post-WW2 Hungarian hyperinflation contains this claim:
The link* ( http://heindorffhus.motivsamler.dk/shoebox/frame-HungaryInflation01.htm) is an article by the librarian, Peter Kr. H. Bech, of the Danish Philately Club Library ( http://kpk.dk/biblioteket), and is not referenced, nor does it seem to be a scholarly work. It is also concerned with philately rather than currency (the hyperinflation is used to explain the rising value of Hungarian stamps; not surprising considering the author), and as such it simply claims:
That's it; no sources, no references, nothing. As currently sourced this is definitely NOT a work of 'a historian', but an unverified claim made by a philatelist(!)
It would appear that the claim on the website is based on an article (Ungarns inflation 1945 - 46) in Nordisk Filatelistisk Tidsskrift (Nordic Philately Magasine), 2000, No. 1, pp. 23 (see: http://kpk.dk/system/files/Index%20NFT%201960%20-%202010.pdf pp. 11, search for 'bech'). Not exactly where I would expect seminal economic/political history research to be published, although Mr. Bech may have had secondary sources in this original article.
However, unless someone can provide verifiable sources for this claim, I would advise its removal.
As it currently stands it is not 'some historians' , but rather 'one philatelist' who 'believes' ...
Mojowiha ( talk) 20:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
In addition to a reference, shouldn't a mechanism be provided as well? To me, this sounds about as valid as a story of someone who hates consumer00ism, so they conspire to make cheeseburgers greasy and give Americans health problems. Or for a more humorous version, see "The Adventures of Isabel" by Ogden Nash. I fail to see any connection between marxists wanting the collapse of the middle class (assuming they want that, which I think is pretty contestable) and marxists actually having leverage to cause the collapse of the middle class.
I have removed the following paragraph because: (1) it does not pertain to the factual description of the section describing hiper/high inflation processes. (2) Lacks factual accuracy and is highly subjective [for instance, inflation reached 55.7% in 1951 during Peron's presidency, 123.6% in 1959, 182.9% in 1975, 444% in 1976...]; (3) the impact of political orientation on actual inflation rates is an extremely controversial and highly disputed topic, and its inclussion in a factual section is misleading; (4) the claim that a given economic policy was intended to "create chaos" is entirely subjective and cannot be sustained with appropriate documentation; (5) Professor Escudé is not an expert on hiperinflation, and his alleged remark has little relation with the topic at hand. In other words, the paragraph is misplaced, is not supported by the data, is highly subjective, and presents highly controversial topics as facts. I consider that it must be removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atamola ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
− Ellen Brown, author of Web of Debt, admits that the left-oriented policy that Argentina had had since 1947, when Juan Peron came to power, did actually create inflation. But the inflation did not become a national crisis until during the eight years that followed Peron's death in 1974. During these years the inflation rose to 206 percent, due to a "deliberate radical devaluation of the currency of the new government, along with a 175 percent increase in oil prices". This devaluation was, as she sees it, done with the hidden purpose of destabilizing the economy (to create a chaos). And it was, in any case, not caused by a sudden and massive increase in the printing of money by the government. She also cites Professor Escudé who writes that this devaluation led both to "the astronomical high inflation" and "to the spread of a speculative financial system that became a hallmark of Argentina's financial life". citation needed
This new paper out of Cato should be utilized to provide data on various episodes of hyperinflation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.152.209 ( talk) 18:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Cagan´s defintion of hyperinflation, namely 50% monthly inflation, is not the generally accepted definition. The Hanke - Krus table of world hyperinflations is thus not a valid study. It does not include hyperinflation in Turkey and Venezuela.
The IASB´s defintion of hyperinflation, namely cumulative inflation of 100% over three years, is the valid definition followed by all accountants world wide.
I think the Hanke-Krus table should be replaced with a table including Turkey and Venezuela.
ShinyEarRing ( talk) 15:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
That would be doubling of prices over three years which is equivalent to 26% per year compounded, which is less than 2% per month compounded. Businesses would factor that 2% into their monthly price increases, and unions would demand wage increases of 2% per month, and banks would have to pay more than 2% per month interest to attract deposits, but that is not hyperinflation. Maybe the IASB meant 100% per year if that rate continued for at least 3 years, i.e. not a one-year crisis. Doubling of prices each year is 6% per month compounded. Severe inflation yes, but not hyperinflation.
Cagan´s definition has not been implemented by any company or government since April 1989, the date the IASB authorized IAS 29. It will NEVER be used by any company or government in the future. All companies and all governments today follow the IASB´s definition. It is thus very clear that the IASB´s definition is the generally accepted defintion of hyperinflation.
I suggest the Hanke-Krus table be removed from the article. I am absolutely sure there is a Wikipedia rule to quote and to follow to do this. I just don´t have the time to look for the rule. ShinyEarRing ( talk) 09:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Where is the record of my wretched country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.218.67.253 ( talk) 15:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I just removed 12k of "According to Cagan" from the article. I also restructured the lede.
Regarding the lede, I think it's best to start with a general definition of IASB before going into the specifics of what the IASB defines it as. As noted elsewhere in the article, economists use hyperinflation as a term in other meaning that the definition of it for accounting purposes.
Second, the IASB does not regard 100% annual inflation as an absolute. It's noted in the article that that's one of the indicators on inflation but not the only one, and that inflation approaching 100% can be classified as hyperinflation.
Finally, adding the "Cagan's currently not generally accepted definition" to the start of so many sections, before the inflation statistics are given, creates the appearance that we're using Cagan's definition of inflation in compiling the statistics, not just his definition of hyperinflation.
For those reasons, I think we need to step back and look at the restructuring of the article in pieces. That's why I've reverted to the previous status quo, and even though I'm not proposing the changes, I'm opening discussion. — C.Fred ( talk) 15:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
@ MonteDaCunca:, @ C.Fred:--Whether Cagan is accepted or not, the country-specific sections now look silly and awkward. Why not lead the entire country section with a note that says something like "The methodology used to calculate hyperinflation in the countries marked with an asterisks below was based on a definition by Cagan that is not generally accepted any more." Or something like that? Or use the new methodology to calculate it for each country and be done. Or put the data in using both methodologies? Right now though the article is confusion. If Cagan isn't used, why have the country listed at all? Or is this page being used to make an argument only economists, and not people reading an encyclopedia, care about? Prof. Mc ( talk) 13:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: MonteDaCunca ( talk · contribs) is a sock of banned user PennySeven ( talk · contribs). LK ( talk) 08:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not a sockpuppet. MonteDaCunca ( talk) 13:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Lawrencekhoo now moved the article back to 1956. It is now simply about The History of Hyperinflation As Seen In 1956. And theres is nothing anyone can do about it except Lawrencekhoo. Lawrencekhoo or anyone else please name one - only one - government - that today follows Cagan's definition of hyperinflation. MonteDaCunca ( talk) 16:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Please find consensus regarding how to present Hyperinflation definition. Jonpatterns ( talk) 17:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Cagan's definition was never removed from the Definitions section. Please state the date when it was removed from the Definitions section and by which editor.
The other sections - 4 to 7 - very clearly based on Cagan's definition (which has been superseded since 1989 by the IASB's definition as the generally accepted definition) were removed since they currently still do not comply with WP:NPOV. The information in those sections was copied from the Hanke-Krus Hyperinflation Table in the case of Section 4 that lists 39 subparagraphs. Sections 4 to 7 should be clearly marked as based on Cagan's superseded (outdated) definition. It should also be prominently stated in the article that the IASB's definition is being followed by 147 governments implementing IFRS - basically the whole world economy - since 1989 and that it is the generally accepted definition of hyperinflation. It should also be prominently stated that not a single government follows Cagan's definition since 1989. MonteDaCunca ( talk) 19:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MonteDaCunca ( talk • contribs) 19:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
For those who are interested, I've start an SPI case on MonteDaCunca here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PennySeven. Please contribute there if you have evidence. Thank you, LK ( talk) 07:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Cagan´s definition is the generally accepted definition in the world economy.
The IASB's definition is not used in the world economy.
See Section 4, 5, 6 and 7.
This is very clear that this article is based on Cagan´s definition. The IASB's definition is not used at all. It should be removed. No-one uses the IASB's definition. 78.130.81.221 ( talk) 19:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
BZTMPS ★ Thank you for your reply. The source is the article: the Hanke-Krus Hyperinflation Table is based on Cagan´s definition.
Section 4 is based on Cagan's definition: 100% copied from the Hanke-Krus Table.
Section 5 is based on Cagan's definition.
Section 6 is based on Cagan's definition.
Section 7 is based on Cagan's definition.
The Hanke-Krus Hyperinflation Table is based on Cagan´s definition. The table is itself externally linked in the article. Please see the table. Prof Steve Hanke is the number one expert in the world on hyperinflation. See the external links on his article page. That should surely be more than enough external sources for the fact that Cagan's definition is the generally accepted definition of hyperinflation because Prof Steve Hanke uses it as shown in the table and in all the sub-sections in the article. This clearly demonstrates the external sources that there is no doubt that Cagan's definition is the generally accepted definition of hyperinflation. All governments follow Cagan´s definition. 78.130.81.221 ( talk) 19:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I have posted an SPI case here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MonteDaCunca, though I've probably posted it incorrectly. Either way, it's clear that the same person has returned. Prof. Mc ( talk) 19:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Huon, you do understand English. You are not a baby. I did not ask you about economists´ use of the definition of hyperinflation. I asked you about the use by any country of Cagan´s definition. Please supply the name of one country that uses Cagan´s definition today. When you do not know the name of one country that uses Cagan´s definition since it is impossible to know that name since no country uses Cagan´s definition today, then any reasonable person would simply admit that no country uses Cagan´s definition today since that is a fact and the status quo. Everybody except you know that. I thus ask you again, Huon, please tell me the name of one country that uses Cagan´s definition of hyperinflation. Huon, I am not asking you about what economists use: I am asking you to tell me the name of one country that uses Cagan´s definition. Huon, again I ask you very formally here on Wikipedia: please name one country that uses Cagan´s definition of hyperinflation today. Thank you for taking part in this discussion. Odereiugif ( talk) 22:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a reminder: This page is regularly trolled by sockpuppets of PennySeven (banned for disruption a few years ago). If you see anyone behaving non-collaboratively while pushing to reject the hyperinflation is >50% per month definition in favor of hyperinflation is >100% over 3 years, it's likely a sock of PennySeven, as only confirmed socks of PennySeven have ever pushed such a view here. If you see a new editor like that, especially if they show WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, I suggest reverting per WP:DENY and filing a report at WP:SPI. LK ( talk) 08:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)