Doublechecking, again

Proofreading Tuesday's post in the wee hours, I came to the end:

Far as I know, which isn't far, I admit, the cause of the 1955-57 inflation was never discovered.

 That kind of thing bothers me. I'd prefer to know. Then I remembered Steve Waldman's comment:

 We have just one big boom to look at.

"Big boom," I thought. "Little boom". I should use "little boom" in a search. So I did, at Google Search:

the "little boom" in the "Labor Force Participation Rate" in "1955"

Ten results.

 

Searching the page coincidentally turned up 10 occurrences of "1955".

Nine of them are in phone numbers. The other one was in my search text.

Hey -- that means one of the ten hits Google turned up might be worth checking.

Nope. It redirects to some place I don't want to be.

So, no news. I still don't know if the cause of the 1955-57 inflation was ever found. Except, of course, I found it now.

Would I rather have found the cause to be cost pressure caused by the growth of finance? 

That *is* what my guess would have been. On 7 April I was still looking at financial cost-push in the years before 1965. That post was withdrawn because one of my graphs was bad. But there is a big difference in financial cost as you go from 1955 to 1965. I still think the growing cost of finance was the small problem that created cost issues which look like "conflict" inflation. I still think it was growing financial cost that got the Great Inflation started.

But if the 1955-57 inflation was not caused by the cost of finance, that's probably good. It would mean that finance was not already too big in the 1950s, and that would be a useful thing to know.