Additionally some experts say that the inflation was bigger in Europe because the governments didn't do investments with new debt.
The definition was changed only because economists decided inflating the money supply was a brilliant economic policy and the old definition became inconvenient.
When you realize they changed the definition only for better optics it's easier to question the underlying principles.
That probably isn't true, both because it isn't that obvious that the economists thought it was a good idea or that they were the ones who changed the definition. "Economists" don't have any power over anything and the consensus position seems to tend towards disagreement with government policy.
Inflation is one of those topics where there seems to be a dearth of actual economic evidence bought to the conversation. The policy justification in the public discourse tends towards just-so stories.
This is a good overview of the history of the term "inflation."
Ideally people would specify which inflation they're referring to, like monetary Inflation or price inflation. Short of that though, until we started moving to full fiat currencies inflation without any qualifier was inflation of the money supply. After the move to fiat they repurposed the braod term to mean price inflation, presumably because monetary inflation isn't meaningful when your system is based entirely on manipulating the money supply.
In fact, in those situations it’s necessary to increase the money supply to avoid deflation and other issues, as the existing folks with money/resources otherwise just have to sit on their hands and squeeze everyone else to get rich.
In an actual growth environment, Printing more money keeps everyone roughly the same level of poor/rich overall.
The issue is when population is decreasing or actual economic output is decreasing, but rather than withdrawing money to compensate, more money is printed to try to keep the graph going up and to the right.
IMO that has been an ever increasing trend since around the 90’s in the US.
Monetary inflation = money creation by definition. Whether that makes everyone poorer depends on other factors though, like how the money enters the money supply and what current market dynamics are.
Price inflation doesn't equal money creation though. Printing money can cause price inflation, but other things can as well. Printing money too slowly relative to the economy could actually not keep up, prices can fall even though the money supply increase. There may be a corner case or two, but I do pretty much agree though that price inflation makes everyone poorer.
Then we'd expect to see deflation when the supply chain crisis is resolved - which seems unlikely but I suppose it cannot yet be ruled out. I doubt anyone will be held accountable if that deflation doesn't materialise though.
It is an interesting question where CPI inflation is supposed to be coming from if not inflation in the money supply.
I mean you’d have to be completely stupid to believe that what they did had no impact on inflation.
If tripling the amount of base money has no effect then logically destroying 70% of the base money would also have no effect, but I never see people advocating that