Sat Feb, 21 2004
What The Thing Really Is
My old friend Bruce McQuain is just wrong.
"What is inflation? It’s a sustained rise in the general price level."That is simply not true, and I don't care who says it. In the comments, I've made the point that "complaints about 'doctrinal purity' are actually complaints against conceptual precision." I've been told that "arguing FOR 'doctrinal purity' when it serves no useful purpose in what is being described is absurd."
To begin with: the words "doctrinal purity" are not mine, and they mean nothing to me in terms of the issue at hand, except for this: I know a pejorative when I see one.
The "useful purpose" of my argument is about describing reality. The general thrust of Bruce's post is very good. However, there is no point whatever in pandering to a popular nonsense just because it's popular. Every dolt on the street -- and most of 'em in the governments -- thinks he knows what "inflation" is, in no small part because of the way officials have used the term in their own interest for generations, now. However, the fact of the matter is that they're all talking about effect instead of cause, and they don't know the difference.
My general question: what possible good can come of discussing something so politically charged in terms that have nothing to do with it?




