Richard Murphy says:
October 1 2017 at 9:05 am
If you’re plating pedant (and like many, that’s all you can do) that argument can be made.
But it’s entirely appropriate to say in response that all things are relative and and money has no value barring its relationship with other goods. It is wholly apparent that the decrease I referred to was the declining value of money required to purchase a fixed amount of other goods.
But you’d rather ignore the issue and play semantics instead. Now why might that be?
No, it’s the declining amount of money because the value is increasing relative to those other goods.