Shouldn't 'inflation' really be called 'devaluating currency'?

Answer 1

Well yes.

"Inflation is not caused by the actions of private citizens, but by the government: by an artificial expansion of the money supply required to support deficit spending." [Ayn Rand]

"The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done with gold." [Alan Greenspan]

Answer 2

According to the dept of labor!

Inflation can be defined as the overall general upward price movement of goods and services in an economy. BLS has various indexes that measure different aspects of inflation.

Though you are correct, money is devalued, it isn't directly. What are is prices, which in turn may, or may not, cause inflation, depending on a lot of other factors.

Actually, there is very little currency in the US! You would be surprised to know that we don't do a lot of business with actual money!

Answer 3

No because if refers to an inflation of the money supply, or in more popular context an inflation of general prices.