9th Mar 2014
Mises defines inflation as: http://archive.mises.org/19306/inflation-and-deflation-austrian-definitions/
an increase in the quantity of money (in the broader sense of the term, so as to include fiduciary media as well), that is not offset by a corresponding increase in the need for money (again in the broader sense of the term), so that a fall in the objective exchange-value of money must occur.
All other Economist define
Definition of ‘Inflation’
The rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising, and, subsequently, purchasing power is falling. Central banks attempt to stop severe inflation, along with severe deflation, in an attempt to keep the excessive growth of prices to a minimum.
In other words loosely speaking the rate at which the currency in question is losing it’s purchasing power relative to goods and services.
I tried to point out to a Mises Fan today that The quantity of money has been thoroughly dismantled and to say nothing of that one merely need to investigate and found out the federal reserve created over 32 trillion after 2008 in the partial fed audit that Bernie sanders reported on. don’t believe me? http://www.forbes.com/sites/traceygreenstein/2011/09/20/the-feds-16-trillion-bailouts-under-reported/
if Mises were right one would expect to see the price of goods and services to rise directly proportional to the number of dollars created. Yes, they Rose. I admit it. but proportionally? no such proportional correlation has been found Only a Correlation. In fact so suspect was thist hat I had to read this: http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2010/07/quantity-theory-of-money-critique.html
Shortly after I figured out that the Quantity theory of money had been debunked so I googled about Mises redefining inflation .what I found was not encouraging, a bunch of uppity Austrians on Reddit were moaning about how Mises wasn’t the one to redefine inflation when another Person asked this question, everyone else did.
And then I realized “everyone else did” because it became obvious to anyone who bothered that Mises’s theory of the cause of inflation was at best only correlated but no 1:1 proportionally related. Meaning the only rational conclusion was that while currencies did draw some of their value from the quantity in existence the ultimate causation of their values were based on a myriad of factors. Not simply their quantity. These Misean Fanboys will go to no end and No passage of history will even it seems change their mind. Proving they are viciously anti-scientific.
Oh and when it comes to the scientific method, being this?
when it says “trouble shooting” Mise’ss might think he’s being cute but it doesn’t mean “scour history to discover some 18th century definition of my words, when found use them instead of what neoclassical or Keynesian economist use in order to force my aprori conclusions into the thought experiment.
In other words Since Moses uses such an extreme definition of Inflation He “passes” but only because it’s true by default when you define things the way he did. This isn’t what science does. In real science if we use the modern definition and we can’t find such a proportional relationship we conclude that we simply don’t understand the issue well enough yet and that there must be Variables we don’t know yet thus proving our Hypothesis is the problem not the Findings of the experiment. Mises “fixed” his Hypothesis problems by merely referring to 18th century and before Arcane definitions of inflation. That Austrian Economist are so up in arms that “haughty” neoclassical and Keynesian have moved on and yet fail to realize the historical context because they weren’t alive to realize it just proves yet and for all what stone age relics these people are. I might be a Fellow anarchist But I’m an anarcho-collectivist and I know it sounds like I’m apologizing for the state But i’m not. I’m just saying your Inflation Hypothesis has problems from a value neutral descriptive perspective,