Really? What was accurate, then? My response was about where the money came from, and the answer is "thin-air", and it's not a pittance.
That depends. How do you define inflation, by an increase in consumer prices? What index of consumer prices do you want to use? The government CPI is cooked. If you define it by the money supply, the Fed decided to
stop publishing M3, so we have to estimate it.
But, as I've pointed out before, focusing on consumer prices to measure inflation is exceedingly myopic. That would ignore all of the Fed-induced asset bubbles throughout history. The already vastly-wealthy wall streeters who received the bailouts aren't really going to ramp up their consumption of food and energy, were these actually accounted for in CPI. They might add another Bentley to their car collection. What they're sure to do, however, is buy
assets like stocks and bonds, to increase their relative share of the production pie. This will undoubtedly allow them to consume more than their fair-share in the future.
Of course it's worth pointing out, again, that monetary inflation is a tax, and
even if the CPI weren't understated and indicated a price change of 0, you would still be paying a tax in the form of an opportunity cost. You see, in a robust and technologically advanced society such as ours, prices for goods and services will be in a constant state of decline - things get cheaper as we produce more. It's only the persistent debasement of our money that keeps prices stable, or going up.
It's not my fault that most people don't understand this, it's akin to how people perceive taxes withheld much differently than taxes paid.