> its original meaning - a rise in the general price level caused by an imbalance between the quantity of money and trade needs
and in the PDF:
> an inflating currency has but one origin — the central bank— and one solution— a less expansive money growth rate
This is inherently problematic because there's no clear self-contained reason that inflating currency is a problem that needs a solution. If it failed to lead to price inflation or other effects, then it doesn't matter.
> A good’s real price, or value, was defined as the effort required to produce it
Well, people have and do talk like that, but it's dumb. That definition fits "cost" not "price".
But anyway, I don't need to be picky. Sure, I accept that "inflation in money supply" is not only reasonable use of the metaphor of inflation but is indeed historically how it was used. And as the paper accepts, the definition has changed. That's how the world works.
I still suspect that even 100-150 years ago, if inflation in the money supply didn't have any affect on prices, people would not have said the same things about it. All the quotes seem to assume that money supply inflation leads to price increase.
As to the use today, it's unarguable. See https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/statistics/inflation
> Inflation can be defined as the overall general upward price movement of goods and services in an economy.
That simply is the definition today. And I think it was always the implication anyway.