Because the citizens don't understand what 'inflation' means, despite it's simplicity. (Re Trump and Warren both wanting to increase/abolish the US debt ceiling)
Ask HN: Should the word 'inflaiton' be replaced with 'devaluation'?
1–4 of 4 posts
Re: Ask HN: Should the word 'inflaiton' be replaced with 'devaluation'?
#2Language is organic. Even in general, I'm more inclined to increase the funding for public education... Economic vocabulary seems to be being overengineered to confuse people.
Re: Ask HN: Should the word 'inflaiton' be replaced with 'devaluation'?
#3Prices are higher, hence inflation. People aren't going to understand devaluation because they think $1 = $1.
Re: Ask HN: Should the word 'inflaiton' be replaced with 'devaluation'?
#4No, because "devaluation" means something different.
Devaluation is about currency. Inflation is about consumer prices. Devaluation of the currency generally raises customer prices, but that's only a fraction of what happens. And inflation happens without devaluation -- when a resource becomes scarcer, its price rises.
The debt ceiling has nothing to do with either. The debt ceiling is a formality. Congress sets spending and taxation levels. The need to raise funds via borrowing is baked into the appropriations bills. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling does not change Congress' spending habits.
Abolishing the debt ceiling is just to avert the annual shutdown threats. It gives somebody leverage -- "I won't vote to raise the debt ceiling until you give me X". It's a show, not an economic plan.
We've been raising the debt ceiling every year for decades. And inflation has generally been low. Right now inflation is 2.7% -- higher than the Fed wants, but not a crisis.
Yes, we should get spending under control. But not because of inflation, and the debt ceiling is not how you do that.