Talk:Internal devaluation

This article seems to have large sections of POV, uncited original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.175.219 (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly biased and unsourced article. At this point it would be better to trim it to the essential, informative parts. 90.163.81.154 (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an embarrassment. It needs almost an entire rewrite. It fails to serve the purpose of informing the reader what an internal devaluation actually IS. I will return next week with a draft of what this should look like, and see if we can get a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.106.24 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should be updated, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.218.210.40 (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the worst wikipedia articles I've ever read. Will anyone update it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.82.135.21 (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing sentence

That is why the widely discussed eventual success of internal devaluation is considered as urban legend or in worst cases - as political propaganda by neoliberal or Keynesian economists

Does this mean that neoliberal or Keynesian economists consider it propaganda, or does this mean that it is considered as propaganda coming from neoliberal or Keynesian economists? --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 00:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]