If you’re unfamiliar with that definition, I can understand why it might be jarring. But there’s a whole school of economic study that uses this definition.

You can have money supply inflation without price inflation or the devaluation of the currency. That happens over various time periods for various reasons.

Inflation as a matter of prices is more subjective, because as you might notice if you look at something like CPI, they’re always re-jiggering the formulas.

You could look at something like cars which are sensitive to inflation because of their cost inputs of labor and commodities. But you could also look at a personal computer or a TV and you’d see no or even negative inflation on those prices.

The long term tendency is to see general price inflation that’s in line with money supply inflation. It’s not 1 for 1 but it’s certainly strongly correlative. The Fed knows this, of course, and it’s why it uses various throttles and brakes to increase or decrease money supply: to maintain price inflation at a specific rate.

However, we can forever disagree over which prices to add into the CPI hopper to spit out an inflation number, but looking at money supply inflation is not debatable. That’s why I say it’s more useful. We can see how inflating the currency over the long term raises prices for people, generally.

You might also disagree that such a system benefits government contractors at the expense of savers, but you don’t have to do so with hostility.