PRICE inflation remains relatively subdued in the rich world, even though central banks are busily printing money. But other types of inflation are rampant. This “panflation” needs to be recognised for the plague it has become.

Take the grossly underreported problem of “size inflation”, where clothes of any particular labelled size have steadily expanded over time. Estimates by The Economist suggest that the average British size 14 pair of women’s trousers is now more than four inches wider at the waist than it was in the 1970s. In other words, today’s size 14 is really what used to be labelled a size 18; a size 10 is really a size 14. (American sizing is different, but the trend is largely the same.) Fashion firms seem to think that women are more likely to spend if they can happily squeeze into a smaller label size. But when three out of four American adults and three out of five Britons are overweight, the danger is that size inflation reduces women’s incentive to eat less. Meanwhile, food-portion inflation has also made it harder to fight the flab. Pizzas now come in regular, large and very large. Starbucks coffees are Tall, Grande, Venti or (soon) Trenta. “Small” seems to be a forbidden word.

In this section

• China’s military rise
• All clear?
• The Yangon spring
• Message to Ankara
• »The perils of panflation

Reprints

Related topics

• United Kingdom

Inflation is also distorting the travel business. A five-star hotel used to mean the ultimate in luxury, but now six- and seven-star resorts are popping up as new hotels award themselves inflated ratings as a marketing tool. “Deluxe” rooms have been devalued, too: many hotels no longer have “standard” rooms, but instead offer a choice of “deluxe" (the new standard), “luxury”, “superior luxury” or “grand superior luxury”. Likewise, most airlines no longer talk about “economy” class. British Airways instead offers World Traveller; Air France has Voyageur. Sardine class would be more honest. The value of frequent-flyer miles is also being eroded by inflation: it is increasingly hard to book “free” flights; they cost more miles, and redemption fees have increased. This was inevitable: airlines have been issuing so many miles (for spending on the ground as well as in the air) that the total stock is worth more than all the dollar notes and coins in circulation. Central bankers would shudder at such reckless inflationary policies—were they not themselves earning triple miles up in first class.

Some other strains of inflation have more serious economic effects. One example is grade inflation, the tendency for comparable academic performance to be awarded higher grades over time. In Britain the proportion of A-level students given “A” grades has risen from 9% to 27% over the past 25 years. Yet other tests find that children are no cleverer than they were. A study by Durham University concluded that an A grade today is the equivalent of a C in the 1980s. In American universities almost 45% of graduates now get the top grade, compared with 15% in 1960. Grade inflation makes students feel better about themselves, but because the highest grade is fixed, it also causes grade compression, which distorts relative prices. This is unfair to the brightest, whose grades are devalued against those of average students. It also makes it harder for employers to identify the best applicants.

Fight the flab

Employers are themselves distorting the jobs market with job-title inflation, which has recently accelerated because a fancier-sounding title is cheaper than a pay rise. Firms are awash with an excess of chiefs and directors, such as Director of First Impressions (receptionist) and Chief Revenue Protection Officer (ticket inspector). This is not just a laughing matter. Job-title inflation has economic costs if it makes the jobs market more opaque and makes it harder to assess the going pay rate.

Inflation of all kinds devalues everything it infects. It obscures information and so distorts behaviour. A former German central banker, Karl Otto Pöhl, compared inflation to toothpaste: easy to squeeze out of the tube, almost impossible to put back in. The usual cure, monetary and fiscal tightening, will not work for panflation. Women will never squeeze back into their old clothes unless they reject size inflation. Instead, it is time for everybody to tighten belts (literally) and fight all sorts of inflationary flab.

Be mindful of inflation

Think of creativity as a skill to be developed. Train with small doses of laughter

I was watching the fight from a european stream tonight, and i must say the Pacquiao majority decision is complete garbage. The british commentators easily had marquez cruising.

In fact, here is a score from someone who saw what i saw. The round eleven description is spot on: "Given American judges preference for aggression over smart countering may mean that the scores at ringside are closer"

It doesn't matter anyways, this should open up the opportunity for Pacquiao and Mayweather to fight. Unfortunately for Pacquiao, Mayweather is an entire class up in terms of defensive speed and timing compared to Marquez. And the last time someone knocked down Floyd, 2006 (Zab Judah, but ruled a slip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPe8-JDQ2-g), (when he hurt his own hand) and 2001 (Carlos Hernandez, injured his hand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fswFNvqgyk&feature=related)

Actually if you still like Pacquiao's odds against Mayweather, take a look at Mayweather vs Marquez on compubox: http://compuboxonline.com/news.php?news_id=9
Mayweather lands 290/493 punches, 185/316 jabs, 105/177 power punches. Marquez lands 69/583 punches, 21/288 jabs, 48/295 power punches.

I'd predict Mayweather to outpoint by a healthy number of rounds, unless of course, the same three judges are back on duty.