Why Did Deflation in the 19th Century Start and End? (in Japanese)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Japan's economy today is plagued with a persistent deflation. From the early 1870s to the middle of the 1990s, however, Western countries too suffered from deflation. At that time, those countries experienced a fall in prices despite of a rise in money supply. In Japan, there is a controversy whether monetary policy is useful in battling deflation. The experiences of Western countries in the 19th century will give us some insight and suggestions, but they may not fit Japan's economic situation today. The lesson that we could obtain from those experiences is simple. The reason why prices fell significantly while the money supply increased sharply in that age is that real production increased even more rapidly. Prices fell more rapidly than the ratio of money to real production decreased. This occurred due to the increase of the desire for holding money among the people. That is, prices did not increase because real production increased and the ratio of money to GDP increased. Deflation in the 19th century ended in the middle of the 1990s, and prices began to increase gradually with the increase of base money. Why, then, did the base money increase? Because gold mines in South Africa and Canada were discovered and new technologies that better extracted gold from the mines were introduced. Base money controlled under the gold standard increased due to the increase in the production of gold. As the result, a period of deflation that lasted for 30 years came to an end. It is clear that this increment of money led to an overcoming of deflation; the discovery of gold is considered to be an exogenous factor.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".