"Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?...The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."
In 1984, George Orwell introduced Newspeak, a new language being gradually adopted by citizens of a fictional country called Oceanaia. As Orwell notes, the intention was that once Newspeak had been fully adopted, 'a heretical thought should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words'. This was done through the invention of new words and, more importantly, by 'eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings.'
Words, of course, don't change their meaning by coincidence. As Orwell points out in his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language, the 'decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes'. Of course, if we think foolish thoughts, our language would become full of foolish words, but the effect becomes a cause and the new language encourages more foolish thoughts. But what exactly does it mean that the decline of language has political and economic causes? Well, since the civilized world happens to be in the middle a severe ideological crisis, we can use a contemporary example to show how this process works.
Let's look at the word Inflation. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (requires subscription), Inflation was first used in the context of economics in 1838 by one D.D. Bernard who spoke about the 'inflation of the currency'. In 1864, it was used by Noah Webster - author of Webster's English Dictionary - to describe 'Undue expansion or increase, from over-issue [of currency]'. In 1949, The Times newspaper wrote that 'Inflation is used to describe the situation in any country where there is an excess of currency and credit in relation to the work to be done'.
As you can see, the word was originally used to describe an increase in the supply of money. Such an increase often results in a general increase in prices. However, one is the possible cause of the other, and the two are definitely not one and the same.
Today, the Oxford English Dictionary, defines Inflation, in the context of economics, as follows:
"Great or undue expansion or enlargement; increase beyond proper limits; esp. of prices, the issue of paper money, etc. spec. An undue increase in the quantity of money in relation to the goods available for purchase; (in lay use) an inordinate rise in prices."
While the dictionary sticks to the original definition of Inflation as an undue increase in the quantity of money, it also notes that 'in lay use' it now means 'an inordinate rise in price'.
And so, Inflation is no longer seen as an increase in the amount of money that might lead to an increase in the general price of goods; it is simply seen as an increase in the general price of goods. But, if Inflation is an increase in the amount of money, what causes this increase? It seems that nobody knows anymore. In the past, there was a word to describe the cause for it; today, we only have a word to describe the end result.
This confusion of cause and effect may have originated with the general public, but today, it is common in all major economic publications. Most contemporary economists use the word Inflation to describe a general increase in the price of goods. Only a small group - mostly Libertarian or so-called Austrian economists - still use the word in its original meaning.
As Orwell pointed out, the decline of a language, a deflation of meaning, has 'political and economic causes', which are in turn sustained and reinforced by the continued decline of language. The word Inflation is a case in point. The amount of money in the economy is controlled by the Government and the Federal Reserve (in the US). The government uses Inflation as a hidden tax in order to finance political giveaways and military adventures.
It is always easier to create new money instead of trying to raise taxes directly. Either way, the public pays for it. When the government creates new money, the value of the public's savings is diminished, and they usually need to spend more of it in order to the purchase the same amount of goods. Prices go up. If we differentiate between Inflation and rising prices, it reminds us that government is the cause and that rising prices are the effect. If we use the word Inflation to describe rising prices we forget about the cause. By doing so, we treat rising prices as a god-given curse, and sometimes even turn to politicias to protect us against it. When that happens, the politicians usually blame the rise in prices on "greedy business men and irresponsible consumers" and increase the supply of money even more, which means additional price hikes and less value for your money.
Keep this in mind next time you hear a politician speak about Inflation. Mixing causes and effects is a bad habit. The good news is that this process is reversible, but only if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. And so, says Orwell, 'If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration'.
a) There are many words in English ,(or any other language ), that changed their meaning , Why do you think it is a negative development ? Evolution ,(of a language), is actually the opposite of decline .
b)" But, if Inflation is an increase in the amount of goods, what causes this increase? It seems that nobody knows anymore. In the past, there was a word to describe the cause for it; today, we only have a word to describe the end result."
But printing money is only one of the reasons for inflation there are many more reasons in modern age. And of course printing money not always brings inflation ,( japan case), so it is not always a cause and effect.
c) "Only a small group - mostly Libertarian or so-called Austrian economists - still use the word in its original meaning."
So the minorty that is using words out of the modern context is right?
d) "is always easier to create new money instead of trying to raise taxes directly."
Only for America! other countries that print will feel it immediately with the exchange rate of their currencies.
Thanks, Didi.
a) Many words change their meaning over term. In the case of Inflation, this change is working in the service of the orthodoxy and makes it easier for government to get away with robbery. It's interesting. As Orwell pointed out almost 70 years ago, this process is not new.
b) I have noted that printing money often results in and might cause a rise in prices. I am careful with my words. Suggest you do the same.
c) It's not about right or wrong. Those that use it in the classical sense and differentiate between Inflation (money creation) and its possible causes (rise in prices) are more precise.
d) Not true. Even if they feel it in their exchange rate, it is still an easier way of taking money from the public than raising taxes directly. In addition, the person who spends the new money first gets the benefit of the old value, while the people at the bottom of the pile end up having reduced value for their savings. Happy to explain this in more detail if necessary.