96:
69:
It appears to be less an accepted and understood economical concept and more a "trendy new word"(some forum users phrasing). Not sure if it's notable enough yet, but it could be in the future.
56:
47:
22:
52:
34:
49:
100:
70:
44:
Appears to be a genuine neologism created and used by journalists and bloggers. Cites:
51:. Could AfD it, but IMO, it is probably notable enough for inclusion (marginally).
30:
45:
26:
21:
Does this term really exist in genuine economics literature, or was it
109:
79:
60:
38:
92:"Does this term really exist in genuine economics literature"
8:
25:by somebody as a neologism backformed from
7:
14:
1:
130:
110:00:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
80:00:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
61:05:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
39:23:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
29:for shits and giggles?
121:
107:
106:
77:
76:
129:
128:
124:
123:
122:
120:
119:
118:
102:
101:
72:
71:
19:
12:
11:
5:
127:
125:
117:
116:
115:
114:
113:
112:
93:
85:
84:
83:
82:
64:
63:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
126:
111:
108:
105:
98:
94:
91:
90:
89:
88:
87:
86:
81:
78:
75:
68:
67:
66:
65:
62:
58:
54:
50:
48:
46:
43:
42:
41:
40:
36:
32:
28:
24:
16:
103:
73:
20:
27:stagflation
104:Ink Falls
74:Ink Falls
23:invented
17:Question
31:Bearcat
57:talk
35:talk
97:No
95:-
59:)
53:LK
37:)
99:.
55:(
33:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.