[_dps]

It's simply not true that they keep being wrong. Yes, hyper-inflationists were wrong. But "much larger inflation"-ists were not wrong.

Anything with inelastic supply has gotten more expensive by an average of about 3% every year for the last decade: health care [0], education [1], real estate [2]. That's 50% higher inflation than the 2% conventional target, and arguably after the revelations of 2008 one might justifiably expect even lower than 2% natural inflation.

Then there's the very rapid rise in the price of stocks which is itself a form of price inflation (it takes more money to buy the same share of the productive economy).

Anything rich people/institutions hold or supply in exchange for dollars from laborers has gotten more expensive at a substantially-higher-than-normal rate.

[0] https://www.in2013dollars.com/Medical-care/price-inflation

[1] https://www.in2013dollars.com/College-tuition-and-fees/price...

[2] https://www.in2013dollars.com/Housing/price-inflation

[harryh]

There will always be some subset of goods that rise in price faster than the rest of the basket especially when those goods have artificial constraints on supply. That doesn't mean that inflation is rising faster than the overall basket of goods.

When we talk about the rate of inflation we aren't talking about the cost of health care or education or real estate or really any other particular good. We're talking about the value of money.

[_dps]

You're just choosing a definition that is convenient for you, and I might mention convenient for the wealthy establishment. The things ordinary people most need to buy with money have gotten more expensive — not as a blip, but durably and steadily for a decade. If you want to die on the hill of "this is not how I choose to use the word 'inflation'" then that's fine, I just don't see it as very persuasive.

[harryh]

I'm not trying to claim that rising costs in health care, education and housing are not a problem.

I'm just saying that the nature of the problem isn't runaway inflation. It's a different problem than that.

[_dps]

I don't want to belabor this, and I'm sure that your intentions here are good. I'm very aware of various technical definitions of inflation, and I understand where you're coming from.

I will leave you with this — do you think there might be a reason why the conventionally promoted inflation definitions and measures allow rapid increase in cost of living on fixed income to be called "not inflation"? Do you think that's a good definition, if it means someone with a fixed future cash flow can now buy a smaller stream of future goods? What/who is served by sticking to these (IMO gerrymandered) definitions of "value of money"?

We've gone deep enough and I will leave my contribution at that (though obviously feel free to reply). I too was educated on these technical definitions of inflation and I have become extremely skeptical of them as I have seen the mismatch with lived reality.

Edit: I won't make any more points, but I will say that I consider the implications in the response below here uncharitable and unresponsive to the points above.

[harryh]

No, I don't believe that conventional measures of inflation are a conspiracy by the rich and powerful to keep the working man down.

I do understand that there are others with this point of view including, apparently, you.

I have tended to notice that people who believe these things don't tend to defend them on technical merits but tend to retreat into accusations against the rich and powerful instead, because of course that group of people must be pulling a fast one on everyone else. I do not find these sorts of arguments persuasive.