Inflation was always defined as an expansion of the money supply. Higher prices than there otherwise would be as the result was added later which I think confuses it a little. It was completely re-defined in the 70s as "higher prices or rising prices" which is dumb. It's like calling wet sidewalks rain.Desert wrote: This article is pretty snarky, but it does bring up a few situations I've seen on this forum, such as redefining inflation to mean an increased money supply rather than rising prices.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 ... rain-worms
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)
In*fla"tion (?), n. [L. inflatio: cf. F. inflation.]
1. The act or process of inflating, or the state of being inflated, as with air or gas; distention; expansion; enlargement. Boyle.
2. The state of being puffed up, as with pride; conceit; vanity. B. Jonson.
3. Undue expansion or increase, from overissue; -- said of currency.
Webster’s New World Dictionary: College Edition, 1970:
1. an inflating or being inflated. 2. an increase in the amount of money in circulation, resulting in a relatively sharp and sudden fall in its value and rise in prices
Prices don't inflate or expand, they rise or fall. Rising is not expanding. Prices rise for all sorts of reasons that may or may not have anything to do with inflation.
I'm not an "Austrian". I don't even know what that means. I also don't support the gold standard. I do support 9/11 truth (don't we all?).
That being said this article looks like it was written by a child and intended for numbskulls. Well, it's a Bloomberg article. I think the only criteria they have for economics writers is that they don't know anything about economics.