November 26th, 2012 at 11:25PM
The word “inflation” originally applied solely to the quantity of money. It meant that the volume of money was inflated, blown up, overextended. It is not mere pedantry to insist that the word should be used only in its original meaning. To use it to mean “a rise in prices” is to deflect attention away from the real cause of inflation and the real cure for it. —

Henry Hazlitt, What You Should Know About Inflation (1960)

I’ve made this argument many times (see here, here, here, and here), but am only now reading Hazlitt’s WYSKAI. Definitely a worthy read.

(via laliberty)
  1. sugashane reblogged this from laliberty
  2. thecriticlaughs reblogged this from laliberty
  3. becauseithinktoomuch reblogged this from roxygen
  4. circularfire reblogged this from lalibertarienne
  5. vexedstressedboredtodeath reblogged this from lalibertarienne
  6. getmesomedopamine reblogged this from laliberty
  7. groovylovepatch reblogged this from laliberty
  8. deadeyedix reblogged this from anarchei
  9. anarchei reblogged this from laliberty
  10. dontprayonme reblogged this from lalibertarienne
  11. roxygen reblogged this from lalibertarienne
  12. carnerdlian reblogged this from iambinarymind
  13. iambinarymind reblogged this from laliberty
  14. phil0kalia reblogged this from laliberty
  15. ronok reblogged this from laliberty
  16. asuperfluousman said: Love WYSKAI. However, Hazlitt’s definition should be slightly amended. Inflation should be understood as an increase in the supply of money that doesn’t match the increase in demand for money. Selgin understands inflation thusly, and I believe Mises held a similar view,…
  17. laliberty posted this
47 notes Source: laliberty #inflation#austrian economics#keynesian economics#Federal Reserve#Monetary Policy
Short URL for this post: http://tmblr.co/ZQLZWyY8m_Xx
blog comments powered by Disqus