![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Spanish Price Revolution page were merged into Price revolution. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (17 August 2017) |
I don't think you did disagree, David -- just vastly improved an extended stub! Since I'm not thrilled by economic history, I certainly don't mind someone much more interested doing the revising -- hope it wasn't all that awful, though. I just wanted to contribute something new, and this was off the top of my head. JHK
appropriately mass produced eg law, education, etc is causing some strange and perhaps dangerous imbalances. Oth the ease of production of wealth has created a surplus of labour which may be deployed for bizarre and largely unproductive ends.
I think that sentence is a bit confusing. A priori, and certainly fundamentally, population growth does not contribute to higher prices. In fact, since the currencies we're talking about here were silver-based (fractional-reserve banking not having been introduced) and had a slow and probably nearly constant circulation velocity, you'd expect deflation, in the absence of new silver (which is excluded from the discussion in that paragraph).
In this case, there are certainly other factors that have to be included: settlement structures limited the available arable land; adjusting the economy to a larger population might have resulted in extra cost. However, I would think it's impossible to discern those comparatively minor factors after all those years, most data having been lost.
I'll remove "fundamentally" now, but I'm not sure I'm smart enough to salvage anything from the rest of the paragraph.
RandomP 23:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
this really has been debunked, that is the spanish importation of american bullion and the burgeoning population, to be attributed to the price revolution. the revoluiton according to jack goldstone, was fuled by the increase in the velocity of market transactions, therefore inflating price: p=mv/t where p=goods at sale price,m=stock of money, v= velocity of circulation, and t= the volume of goods sold. the bullion was traded from lima through the nw to asia, india and china, or hoarded by and large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.90.37 ( talk) 17:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
MV=PY. When population goes up Y goes up (though less than one for one, by diminishing returns). Assuming velocity doesn't change, and money stock remains constant, higher population will lead to LOWER prices. Now. An increase in population MIGHT change the RELATIVE price of food (vis a vis other commodities) but that 1) is not guaranteed, and 2) is not what is meant by "inflation".VolunteerMarek 05:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
But Goldstone's story of the change in V should be included in the article (though AFAIK, it's PART of the story).VolunteerMarek 05:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be titled the "Price Revolution" in capitals as e.g. in Hughes' Early Modern Germany? It surely is a proper name. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 18:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
An WP:AfC has been written called European Price Revolution. I suggest merging the information from that article into this one, rather than creating a separate article? Jonpatterns ( talk) 09:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I propose that European Price Revolution be merged into this article Price revolution. I think that the content in the former article is about largely the same topic. Jonpatterns ( talk) 18:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Ditto on Spanish Price Revolution
I've done the shorter easier merge of European Price Revolution and Price Revolution Jonpatterns ( talk) 15:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense, but maybe change the title, the 'Spanish Price Revolution' is slightly misleading, as the influx of goods effected all of Europe's economy. Mention in the first few sentences the inflation was due largely to the Spanish, but refer to it simply as the Price Revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.36.235 ( talk) 03:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Support - I do think we should change the name to encompass all of Europe as it was a European price change, but it is virtually all the same series of events — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethangibson4 ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The article doesn't really explain why the "price revolution" is interesting or important or worth having an article about. OK, so prices increased more than they had previously been increasing . . . so what?
Was it historically important in some way — for example, did it affect people in some way, or have important consequences? Or is it important primarily because of something that economists have learned from it? Or something else?
Were people aware of it at the time, or is it something recognized only in retrospect?
What makes it a "revolution"?
— Ruakh TALK 02:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
...seems to be missing two. Spain suffered defaults on sovereign debts in 1557, 1560, 1569, 1575, and 1596. — LlywelynII 09:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
This article contains quite a lot of inappropriate generalizations. The subject especially with respect to its causes is rather controversially debated, which is not really illustrated here. Danx de Mais ( talk) 13:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Spanish Price Revolution page were merged into Price revolution. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (17 August 2017) |
I don't think you did disagree, David -- just vastly improved an extended stub! Since I'm not thrilled by economic history, I certainly don't mind someone much more interested doing the revising -- hope it wasn't all that awful, though. I just wanted to contribute something new, and this was off the top of my head. JHK
appropriately mass produced eg law, education, etc is causing some strange and perhaps dangerous imbalances. Oth the ease of production of wealth has created a surplus of labour which may be deployed for bizarre and largely unproductive ends.
I think that sentence is a bit confusing. A priori, and certainly fundamentally, population growth does not contribute to higher prices. In fact, since the currencies we're talking about here were silver-based (fractional-reserve banking not having been introduced) and had a slow and probably nearly constant circulation velocity, you'd expect deflation, in the absence of new silver (which is excluded from the discussion in that paragraph).
In this case, there are certainly other factors that have to be included: settlement structures limited the available arable land; adjusting the economy to a larger population might have resulted in extra cost. However, I would think it's impossible to discern those comparatively minor factors after all those years, most data having been lost.
I'll remove "fundamentally" now, but I'm not sure I'm smart enough to salvage anything from the rest of the paragraph.
RandomP 23:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
this really has been debunked, that is the spanish importation of american bullion and the burgeoning population, to be attributed to the price revolution. the revoluiton according to jack goldstone, was fuled by the increase in the velocity of market transactions, therefore inflating price: p=mv/t where p=goods at sale price,m=stock of money, v= velocity of circulation, and t= the volume of goods sold. the bullion was traded from lima through the nw to asia, india and china, or hoarded by and large. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.90.37 ( talk) 17:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
MV=PY. When population goes up Y goes up (though less than one for one, by diminishing returns). Assuming velocity doesn't change, and money stock remains constant, higher population will lead to LOWER prices. Now. An increase in population MIGHT change the RELATIVE price of food (vis a vis other commodities) but that 1) is not guaranteed, and 2) is not what is meant by "inflation".VolunteerMarek 05:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
But Goldstone's story of the change in V should be included in the article (though AFAIK, it's PART of the story).VolunteerMarek 05:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be titled the "Price Revolution" in capitals as e.g. in Hughes' Early Modern Germany? It surely is a proper name. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 18:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
An WP:AfC has been written called European Price Revolution. I suggest merging the information from that article into this one, rather than creating a separate article? Jonpatterns ( talk) 09:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I propose that European Price Revolution be merged into this article Price revolution. I think that the content in the former article is about largely the same topic. Jonpatterns ( talk) 18:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Ditto on Spanish Price Revolution
I've done the shorter easier merge of European Price Revolution and Price Revolution Jonpatterns ( talk) 15:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense, but maybe change the title, the 'Spanish Price Revolution' is slightly misleading, as the influx of goods effected all of Europe's economy. Mention in the first few sentences the inflation was due largely to the Spanish, but refer to it simply as the Price Revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.36.235 ( talk) 03:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Support - I do think we should change the name to encompass all of Europe as it was a European price change, but it is virtually all the same series of events — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethangibson4 ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The article doesn't really explain why the "price revolution" is interesting or important or worth having an article about. OK, so prices increased more than they had previously been increasing . . . so what?
Was it historically important in some way — for example, did it affect people in some way, or have important consequences? Or is it important primarily because of something that economists have learned from it? Or something else?
Were people aware of it at the time, or is it something recognized only in retrospect?
What makes it a "revolution"?
— Ruakh TALK 02:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
...seems to be missing two. Spain suffered defaults on sovereign debts in 1557, 1560, 1569, 1575, and 1596. — LlywelynII 09:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
This article contains quite a lot of inappropriate generalizations. The subject especially with respect to its causes is rather controversially debated, which is not really illustrated here. Danx de Mais ( talk) 13:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)