Inflation is a loss of value, most directly observed in rising prices.

Everything else–money supply, borrowing costs, etc are linked to it, but do not necessarily correlate. The price of a Big Mac is almost certain to be a far better approximation than any of those indicators.

This really isn't that complicated.

Inflation is the result of consumer demand outpacing supply. It's effectively a measure of how much work could not be done. From this perspective hyperinflation is just the result of the government demanding exceedingly far more work than the country as a whole can do. Prices adjust upwards until the existing money supply is exactly enough to pay for all the work that can be done.

If you have a lot of unemployment and inflation is low that basically means there is very little work for your people. This is the reason why 2% inflation is a policy goal. You always want there to be just a tiny little bit more work than there are workers. If there is a way to do more work thanks to technology that is increasing productivity it will be done.

It really isn't, you're right.

Historically, inflation always meant inflation of the money supply. Its definition has changed over time and you've been swindled.

If you have a name for something, name the root cause, otherwise you're obfuscating its study, and perpetuating the non-identification of the root cause.

"Inflation, as this term was always used everywhere and especially in this country, means increasing the quantity of money and bank notes in circulation and the quantity of bank deposits subject to check. But people today use the term `inflation' to refer to the phenomenon that is an inevitable consequence of inflation, that is the tendency of all prices and wage rates to rise. The result of this deplorable confusion is that there is no term left to signify the cause of this rise in prices and wages. There is no longer any word available to signify the phenomenon that has been, up to now, called inflation. . . . As you cannot talk about something that has no name, you cannot fight it. Those who pretend to fight inflation are in fact only fighting what is the inevitable consequence of inflation, rising prices. Their ventures are doomed to failure because they do not attack the root of the evil. They try to keep prices low while firmly committed to a policy of increasing the quantity of money that must necessarily make them soar. As long as this terminological confusion is not entirely wiped out, there cannot be any question of stopping inflation." [0]

[0] https://mises.org/library/defining-inflation

Isn’t the issue exactly that money supply is increasing decoupled from the real economy? This is why quantitative easing hasn’t particularly increased consumer prices, which are one important indicator of value.

Money supply rarely goes directly to consumers, it first has to be spent by the receiving parties and distributed to the wider economy before consumer prices begin increasing.

But it doesn't happen without the prerequisite of money being printed.

That hasn’t happened though - money has gone to corporations and asset holders. It hasn’t trickled down to consumers. Banks aren’t lending to small businesses.

> Inflation doesn't need to be measured in many ways, you can view it directly on the m2 money supply

but this chart doesnt take into account increases in productive capacity. If there exists production capacity to match this growth in money supply, goods will remain relatively priced the same, even if more is printed.

It's not just a quantitative problem, it's also a qualitative one. You want the dollars to circulate and therefore it makes sense to look at the most important subset of goods that is relevant to the every day person.