In plain language, when someone says 'deflation' they are saying that goods are getting cheaper and existing debts are getting more expensive. The definition doesn't change if the economy is in a poor state, it always means the same thing.
Inflation is described as a rate of change. For example, another rate of change is the speed in a car. If you are decelerating, you are bringing the speed of your car toward 0. If your acceleration is negative, you are going in reverse. They have two very different meanings.
So friction doesn’t slow down an accelerating car? You wouldn’t call friction a decelerating force? I think we are talking past each other here and you aren’t able to break this policy’s effect away from the general environment.
In a heavily deflationary environment, if a leader was to increase the money supply suddenly (but not enough for full inflation, just reduction of the deflation) - would you agree this leader’s policy was inflationary?
Why are you being so tedious about this? My general point was correct and everyone understood what I meant
That's just not right. If I'm traveling at a steady 100 kph and hit the brakes, my acceleration is negative. Acceleration is just the rate of change of velocity--the slope of line describing how my velocity changes over time. If I'm stopped, shift into reverse, and hit the gas then my acceleration is still positive because my velocity is increasing (just in the "negative direction" relative to where I started). If my velocity is increasing, my acceleration is positive. If my velocity is decreasing, my acceleration is negative. It doesn't matter what direction I'm going.
In plain language, when someone says 'deflation' they are saying that goods are getting cheaper and existing debts are getting more expensive. The definition doesn't change if the economy is in a poor state, it always means the same thing.
The act is deflationary, that doesn’t mean it changes the entire economy to be deflationary
Inflation is described as a rate of change. For example, another rate of change is the speed in a car. If you are decelerating, you are bringing the speed of your car toward 0. If your acceleration is negative, you are going in reverse. They have two very different meanings.
So friction doesn’t slow down an accelerating car? You wouldn’t call friction a decelerating force? I think we are talking past each other here and you aren’t able to break this policy’s effect away from the general environment.
In a heavily deflationary environment, if a leader was to increase the money supply suddenly (but not enough for full inflation, just reduction of the deflation) - would you agree this leader’s policy was inflationary?
Why are you being so tedious about this? My general point was correct and everyone understood what I meant
That's just not right. If I'm traveling at a steady 100 kph and hit the brakes, my acceleration is negative. Acceleration is just the rate of change of velocity--the slope of line describing how my velocity changes over time. If I'm stopped, shift into reverse, and hit the gas then my acceleration is still positive because my velocity is increasing (just in the "negative direction" relative to where I started). If my velocity is increasing, my acceleration is positive. If my velocity is decreasing, my acceleration is negative. It doesn't matter what direction I'm going.
You're correct, the rate of change of speed is velocity and not acceleration.
Velocity is the rate of change of position.