I don't know what Mish is saying these days, but a year or two ago when he was parroting the Austrian definition, his commentary didn't match up with what you just said. Yes, on the term 'deflation' itself, but I recall Heinz explaining what Mish repeats about inflation or deflation in the money supply frequently being a possible cause of prices going up or down (meaning that retail inflation is a symptom). I don't recall that Mish, Heinz, or anybody else ever saying there was no link between the two. I do recall (and it's obvious) that there are other factors in which can also cause retail inflation. It's the combination of all causes that result in the net of retail inflation/deflation.
And as it has been for the past four years, you and Mish continue to argue about actual language and terminology. I can't fathom why it has been so important to you. I can understand why he'd stick to the Austrian view... it's an economic school of thought and the definition he has adopted is within that context.
You are choosing to use definition in more common use today.
But, seriously, why do you care if he uses the "wrong" definition? What's important if you track monetary supply is how a contraction or expansion may manifest itself.
Ditto retail (price) inflation; ditto wage inflation. Etc.
If he has been saying "monetary deflation" all these years, would you have just let it go?
One thing that Heinz said years ago that still rattles around in the background: rarely has a country that created a debt berg been bailed out by inflation, even though that is the desired and attempted result. You have stated that the chance we will bail out our debt through inflation is 100%. The inability to comprehend any possible deviation from that sort of slam-dunk forecasting means a blind-side is possible.
And yes, I believe he's gotten some other major factors wrong, too, e.g. it doesn't matter what currency somebody takes for, say, oil. |
