> But I do think that it is an expression that it is possible to do without, and that it would be highly dangerous, on account of a serious difference between its meaning in the pure economic theory of money and banking and its meaning in everyday discussions of currency policy, to make use of it where a sharp scientific precision of the words employed is desirable.

Mises says you're being inappropriately pedantic.

> It would be ridiculous pedantry to attempt to provide an economist’s contribution to the controversy as to whether in this or the other country inflation has occurred since 1914

> Those who in the years 1914-24 contested the balance-of-payments theory in Germany in order to oppose the continuation of the policy of inflation may claim the indulgence of their contemporaries and successors if they were not always quite strictly scientific in their use of the word inflation. In fact, it is this very indulgence that we are bound to exercise toward the pamphlets and articles dealing with monetary problems that obliges us to refrain from using these misleading expressions in scientific discussion.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

he's still talking about inflation as "growth of the supply over growth of demand" no?

so where am I being pedantic?

I agree that its a term its possible to do without. "debasement" has been proposed as a substitute and that makes sense to me.

Well I guess we were on topic the whole time, so I guess you weren't being needlessly pedantic actually.

And yeah debasement would be a great word to refer specifically to changes in the total quantity of money via changes in the protocol (increasing the supply cap when that was never agreed upon, issuing fraudulent paper, or mixing less precious metals into metal money)