Depends on what you mean by 'inflation'

I was drawn to this article by its headline reporting that Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor and world's richest man, does not agree with Ben Bernanke's views on inflation and its medium to long-term impact on the U.S. economy. What I'll comment about, however, is the apparent distinction that the Fed makes between relative-price changes and what we would otherwise call inflation. Did you know that they made a distinction? I didn't!

Relative changes in prices are considered to be the result of the demand and supply forces that underly any market for a good or service. Inflation, more generally, is the resulting affect of a general change in price levels that causes our purchasing power to be reduced (assuming positive inflation, of course). What's interesting about this distinction, beyond the fact that such a distinction is even made, is that the Fed (and by the Fed, I'm really referring to Mr. Bernanke) believes that relative price changes are otherwise transitory and will not necessarily lead to inflation. The argument is one that I've written on before, simply that wages are sticky upward and that will mean subdued inflationary pressure. There is a problem with this argument though...

I do agree that wages are sticky and that will mean that inflationary pressures are somewhat tethered. That said, it would be difficult for anyone to argue that purchasing power has not been affected. Beyond the cost of fuel and the rising cost of food, consumer wealth is falling rapidly and this has a very real affect on consumption. As consumer wealth falls, they have less collateral and a generally lower willingness to spend. This, of course, must necessarily result reduced demand which will then result in slower sales, layoffs, even more bankruptcies, and ultimately even slower economic growth. So, my question, then, why does the Fed make such a distinction between relative-price changes and what we plebes call inflation if they both lead to the same thing?