Editing Stagflation (section)

===Zimmermann conclusion===
While most economists believe that changes in money supply can have some real effects in the short run, neoclassical and neo-Keynesian economists tend to agree that there are no long-run effects from changing the money supply.{{cn|date=November 2024}} Therefore, even economists who consider themselves neo-Keynesians usually believe that in the long run, money is [[monetary neutrality|neutral]]. In other words, while neoclassical and neo-Keynesian models are often seen as competing points of view, they can also be seen as two descriptions appropriate for different time horizons. Many mainstream textbooks today treat the neo-Keynesian model as a more appropriate description of the economy in the short run, when prices are "[[Sticky (economics)|sticky]]", and treat the neoclassical model as a more appropriate description of the economy in the long run, when prices have sufficient time to adjust fully.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Real Keynesian Models and Sticky Prices|url=https://www.nber.org/papers/w24223|first1=Paul|last1=Beaudry|first2=Franck|last2=Portier|website=National Bureau of Economic Research|series=Working Paper Series |date=January 2018|doi=10.3386/w24223 |s2cid=158727572 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Therefore, while mainstream economists today might often attribute short periods of stagflation (not more than a few years) to adverse changes in supply, they would not accept this as an explanation of very prolonged stagflation. More prolonged stagflation would be explained as the effect of inappropriate government policies: excessive regulation of product markets and labour markets leading to long-run stagnation, and excessive growth of the money supply leading to long-run inflation.{{Citation needed|date=April 2008}}