My explanation is in this thread to another comment(anon1096). To expand:
> The era between the mid-1830s and the Civil War—a period economists refer to as the “free banking era”—saw a proliferation of banks. Along with these institutions came “bank notes,” a private paper currency redeemable for a specific amount of metal. That is, if the issuing bank had it. At times, banks did not have enough gold or silver to satisfy all of their claims. Bank notes, like the public notes that preceded them, also tended to depreciate. It is during this period that the word inflation begins to emerge in the literature, not in reference to something that happens to prices, but as something that happens to a paper currency.
> The term inflation was initially used to describe a change in the proportion of currency in circulation relative to the amount of precious metal that constituted a nation’s money. By the late nineteenth century, however, the distinction between “currency” and “money” was becoming blurred.
> In addition to separating the price level from the money stock, the Keynesian revolution in economics appears to have separated the word inflation from a condition of money and redefined it as a description of prices.
> When Keynesian economic theory challenged the direct link between money and the price level, inflation lost its association with money and came to be chiefly understood as a condition of prices.
Keynesian economists changed the word to suite the needs of Keynesian theories. It is equivalent to "newspeak". It obfuscates and confuses. There is a large portion of the population that does not believe in the implementation of or understand Keynesian economics(and definitions). They may not be very good at explaining or understanding their discontent due to these semantics changes.
Then again, maybe you are right. As Milton Friedman famously stated, "We are all Keynesians now."
>>"> The term inflation was initially used to describe a change in the proportion of currency in circulation relative to the amount of precious metal that constituted a nation’s money."
That definition of inflation makes no sense in the current monetary arrangements, it's, simply, not how it works anymore. There is not an "amount of precious metal that constituted a nation’s money." If some people don't understand that, we should aim to educate them.
>>"Keynesian economists changed the word to suite the needs of Keynesian theories."
Whatever the historical meaning of a word, inflation means something very clear now
"In economics, inflation (or less frequently, price inflation) is a general rise in the price level in an economy over a period of time, resulting in a sustained drop in the purchasing power of money."
You can't just revert the meaning because it suite your needs, and expect everybody agree. Whatever your feelings about it, that it what it means now.
> That definition of inflation makes no sense in the current monetary arrangements, it's, simply, not how it works anymore. There is not an "amount of precious metal that constituted a nation’s money." If some people don't understand that, we should aim to educate them.
To be clear, what you are referring to is a quote from the FED article I linked to and quoted. Before the Keynesian revolution, inflation meant increased money supply and was assumed to increase prices as well, because money was backed by or was gold/silver. Many people as you opined have a misunderstanding that money is still backed by gold and you are correct that they lack the education. The "change" in the definition was by the Keynesians. It is not accepted by everyone. The monetary theory change should not change the definition.
Why does my definition make sense to me? A price is a number, not a physical thing so it increases. Take the balloon analogy. Money supply is the balloon, inflated with dollars. Price is the balloon, inflated with numbers? Does not make sense to me. The term "price inflation" is a misnomer. It should be "price increase".
FYI: On this site we use "> " for block quotes. You used quotes and ">>" and included my ">". It was a little confusing.
> The era between the mid-1830s and the Civil War—a period economists refer to as the “free banking era”—saw a proliferation of banks. Along with these institutions came “bank notes,” a private paper currency redeemable for a specific amount of metal. That is, if the issuing bank had it. At times, banks did not have enough gold or silver to satisfy all of their claims. Bank notes, like the public notes that preceded them, also tended to depreciate. It is during this period that the word inflation begins to emerge in the literature, not in reference to something that happens to prices, but as something that happens to a paper currency.
> The term inflation was initially used to describe a change in the proportion of currency in circulation relative to the amount of precious metal that constituted a nation’s money. By the late nineteenth century, however, the distinction between “currency” and “money” was becoming blurred.
> In addition to separating the price level from the money stock, the Keynesian revolution in economics appears to have separated the word inflation from a condition of money and redefined it as a description of prices.
> When Keynesian economic theory challenged the direct link between money and the price level, inflation lost its association with money and came to be chiefly understood as a condition of prices.
https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-events/publication...
Keynesian economists changed the word to suite the needs of Keynesian theories. It is equivalent to "newspeak". It obfuscates and confuses. There is a large portion of the population that does not believe in the implementation of or understand Keynesian economics(and definitions). They may not be very good at explaining or understanding their discontent due to these semantics changes.
Then again, maybe you are right. As Milton Friedman famously stated, "We are all Keynesians now."