Almost as if currency should be backed by a rare commodity that requires the same stuff that causes inflation to increase supply.

If printing value-free money wasn't how we are ruled, we could even come up with a diversified scheme where an alchemist could discover a way of turning silicon into gold and it wouldn’t affect the economy much.

But not that 16% level. If the cost of a good is 10% oil then it will increase 1.6% from the oil price.

People seem to have very odd views on inflation. “Eggs have doubled in price therefore real inflation is 100%”

The basket of goods and different figures are all there, build your own basket if you want and come out with your own inflation level. Don’t just gut feeling it.

Now there are legitimate issues — if the cost of 1kg of pasta hasn’t changed, but it is no longer available int he shops near you, then that’s a problem.

> a (large) price increase in one commodity would produce a general price increase.

Nope. Because if you spend more on one commodity, you necessarily spend less on other items. Spending less means less demand, and corresponding price reductions.

This is the Law of Supply and Demand at work.

Which also explains inflation - more money dumped into the economy, without a corresponding increase in the goods & services in the economy, devalues the money (see Law of Supply and Demand), which we call "inflation".

Money is not "special", and is subject to the LoSaD just like everything else.

Look what happened to Beanie Babies' prices when Tyco flooded the market with them. What do you think would happen to the price of Ferraris if Ferrari quadrupled production?

Why do you think Argentina's inflation is way down? It's the reduction in deficit spending. Do you think the Weimar Republic's trillion-to-one was caused by oil prices?