The purpose of the present study is to see whether statistical evidence supports the hypothesis that the rate of change of money wage rates in the United Kingdom can be explained by the level of unemployment and the rate of change of unemployment, except in or immediately after those years in which there was a very rapid rise in import prices, and if so to form some quantitative estimate of the relation between unemployment and the rate of change of money wage rates.



The periods 1861-1913, 1913-1948 and 1948-1957 will be considered separately.

Figure 1 by A. W. Phillips

Figure 9 by A. W. Phillips

Figure 11 by A. W. Phillips

Phillips, an economist in Britian, plotted inflation vs. unemployment in Britian in the 1960’s.



Primarily the data given by Phillips is just a few periods in the 1960s.



The original Phillips curve used a very small data set: just a decade.



I was looking for the original paper on the Phillips curve from the November, 1958 issue of. The Wiley Online Library has it here as a 17-page PDF.From the end of the first section:The PDF includes these graphs:Three graphs covering a span of nearly 100 years, from 1861 to 1957.The same Google search turned up mtnotes_phillips.pdf (13 pages). It appears to be a paper from ancourse on monetary theory and policy. The parent page saysIt's definitely not a beginner's class.From part 1A of the pdf:I don't know what he did in the 1960s. But in 1958, the New Zealand-born Phillips published a study of unemployment and wage inflation covering the period from 1861 to 1957. The 1960s came later.From part 1B of the pdf:And again:No. The original Phillips curve looked at the period from 1861 to 1957.Look, everybody makes mistakes. But thepdf -- maybe "mtnotes" is short for "empty notes" -- the mtnotes pdf completely ignores the century of empirical data in which Bill Phillips found the relation that he wrote up in his 1958 paper.No, the mtnotes guy doesn't justthat century of data. He makes up a story to convince us that there was no century of data. He tells a lie.Is this the right way to do economics? The best lie wins?