Demurrage vs inflation
Yes, there's a difference. If you've borrowed $100, then under inflation your salary will (presumably) increase, and tomorrow your debt will only be worth $99. But under demurrage, you'll still owe $100.
"In that example, ""creating money"" could be used interchangeably with ""making promises"".  There's no inflation, and no problem, so long as everyone keeps their promises. Which sounds like a horrifying thing to say about the foundations of the economy, but the remarkable thing is that people mostly do." That's a simplified, layman's argument that you have minunderstood. Inflation has nothing to do with prices of goods, but rather the purchasing power of the money itself. It sounds like the same thing, but the subtle difference is crucial to understanding monetary policy.   Look at the counterexample: in places with super high inflation, like Venezuela, people spend their entire paycheck the minute they get it, because it's value is declining.    If you don't know that gasoline is an inelastic product, I really can't help you without devoting significant amounts of time to helping you understand a subject that is frequently counterintuitive and hard to understand. You should probably take an economics class. It's fascinating stuff.   Suffice to say, literally everyone who studies this stuff agrees that a small amount of controlled inflation is beneficial to keeping money moving rapidly around the economy, spurring growth and activity in production of goods and services. High inflation is very bad. Hyperinflation is worse. Deflation is the worst, though it sounds great to people who don't know what they are talking about.   Econ 101. Take it. Love it. Inflation refers to the money supply. Think of all money being air in a balloon. Inflation is what happens when you blow more air in the balloon. Deflation is what happens when you let air escape. Inflation may cause prices to go up. However there are many scenarios possible in which this does not happen. For example, at the same time of inflation, there might be unemployment, making consumers unable to pay higher prices. Or some important resource (oil) may go down in price (due to political reasons, war has ended etc), compensating for the money having less value.  Similarly, peoples wages will tend to rise over time. They have to, otherwise everyone would be earning less, due to inflation. However again there are many scenarios in which wages do not keep up with inflation, or rise much faster. In fact over the past 40 years or so, US wages have not been able to keep up with inflation, making the average worker 'poorer' than 40 years ago. At its core, inflation refers to the value of the money itself. As all values of other products, services, assets etc are expressed in terms of money which itself also changes value, this can quickly become very complex. Most countries calculate inflation by averaging the price change of a basket of goods that are supposed to represent the average Joe's spending pattern. However these methods are often criticized as they would be 'hiding' inflation. The hidden inflation may come back later to bite us. What you said is technically correct. But the implication OP might get from that statement is wrong. If the Fed buys bonds and nominal yields go down (Sometimes they might even go up if it meant the market expected the Fed's actions to cause more inflation), inflation expectations don't go down unless real yields as measured by TIPs stay still. I would use neither method.  Taking a short example first, with just three compounding periods, with interest rate 10%.  The start value y0 is 1. So after three years the value is 1.331, the same as y0 (1 + 0.1)^3. Depreciating (like inflation) by 10% (to demonstrate) gets us back to y0 = 1 Appreciating and depreciating by 10% cancels out: Appreciating by 10% interest and depreciating by 3% inflation: This is the same as y0 (1 + 0.1)^3 (1 + 0.03)^-3 = 1.21805 So for 50 years the result is y0 (1 + 0.1)^50 (1 + 0.03)^-50 = 26.7777 Note You can of course use subtraction but the not using the inflation figure directly.  E.g. (edit: This appears to be the Fisher equation.) 2nd Note Further to comments, here is a chart to illustrate how much the relative performance improves when inflation is accounted for.  The first fund's return is 6% and the second fund's return varies from 3% to 6%.  Inflation is 3%. This is subject to some amount of opinion, but I think that Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) are closest to what you describe.  These are issued by the US Treasury like a treasury bond, but the rate is adjusted for inflation. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/prod_tips_glance.htm I see your comment about taxes.  TIPS are exempt from state and local taxes, but they are subject to federal tax on the income and on the growth of the principal. Inflation can be held at whatever level the international fiat banking system desires up until it hits the tipping point. Commodities are still high over a 3 year tracking (my uncle and cousin run a family farm of 1000 acres and they are in heaven this year with prices of beef, corn, and soy so high), and luxury goods are deflating because no one is buying them. I don’t disagree that housing prices are important and vital to the economy, but I think they are a separate issue to inflation, requires a different set of tools to deal with, and has completely different outcomes from policies.   First and foremost, they are almost the only item purchased that can be resold at a higher value. So even though house prices may have risen 1000%, who ever had bought a house exits with a 1000% increase in equity. How would account for that when calculating inflation? Good points. I'd like to add some more:   6. Automation is deflationary   7. Low birth rate is deflationary   8. Declining educational level is deflationary   9. Migration of uneducated people is deflationary   10. Declining EROI is deflationary  The printing press only inflates the valuation of assets, causing the inequality to rise. For people who do not have assets, life becomes more and more unaffordable. Redistribution of wealth cannot solve this problem, as the financial markets require a growing money base. Otherwise, Hyperinflation would be an inevitable consequence.    Economic decline is merciless. I believe there are two ways new money is created: My favorite description of this (money creation) comes from Chris Martenson: the video is here on Youtube. And yes, I believe both can create inflation. In fact this is what happened in the US between 2004 and 2007: increasing loans to households to buy houses created an inflation of home prices. "While this figure is a giant flashing-red beacon of inflation, it should be noted that this has been happening during a period of unprecedented writedowns and deleveraging of ""hypothetical"" assets -- assets that exist on paper only. The result, given the way QE funds have been injected into the market (eg TAF), is that people who *should've* lost money get to tread water, and the inflation is not apparent in the rest of the economy (unless you are actually aware of the severe repercussions which should've happened but didn't).  Also, and separately, I'm not so sure another round of QE is coming." "Debt is nominal, which means when inflation happens, the value of the money owed goes down.  This is great for the borrower and bad for the lender. ""Investing"" can mean a lot of different things.  Frequently it is used to describe buying common stock, which is an ownership claim on a company.  A company is not a nominally fixed asset, by which I mean if there was a bunch of inflation and nothing else happened (i.e., the inflation was not the cause or result of some other economic change) then the nominal value of the company will go up along with the prices of other things. Based on the above, I'd say you are incorrect to treat debt and investment returns the same way with respect to inflation.  When we say equity returns 9%, we mean it returns a real 7% plus 2% inflation or whatever.  If the rate of inflation increased to 10% and nothing else happened in the economy, the same equity would be expected to return 17%.  In fact, the company's (nominally fixed) debts would be worth less, increasing the real value of the company at the expense of their debt-holders. On the other hand, if we entered a period of high inflation, your debt liability would go way down and you would have benefited greatly from borrowing and investing at the same time.   If you are expecting inflation in the abstract sense, then borrowing and investing in common stock is a great idea. Inflation is frequently the result (or cause) of a period of economic trouble, so please be aware that the above makes sense if we treat inflation as the only thing that changed.  If inflation came about because OPEC makes oil crazy expensive, millennials just stop working, all of our factories got bombed to hades, or trade wars have shut down international commerce, then the value of stocks would most definitely be affected.  In that case it's not really ""inflation"" that affected the stock returns, though." Trying to engage in arbitrage with the metal in nickels (which was actually worth more than a nickel already, last I checked) is cute but illegal, and would be more effective at an industrial scale anyway (I don't think you could make it cost-effective at an individual level). There are more effective inflation hedges than nickels and booze. Some of them even earn you interest. You could at least consider a more traditional commodities play - it's certainly a popular strategy these days. A lot of people shoot for gold, as it's a traditional hedge in a crisis, but there are concerns that particular market is overheated, so you might consider alternatives to that. Normal equities (i.e. the stock market) usually work out okay in an inflationary environment, and can earn you a return as they're doing so.... and it's not like commodities aren't volatile and subject to the whims of the world economy too. TIPs (inflation-indexed Treasury bonds) are another option with less risk, but also a weaker return (and still have interest rate risks involved, since those aren't directly tied to inflation either). You can illustrate why expense ratio fees are in the numerator with an extreme example:  Let's say you have $100 in a mutual fund, their expense ratio is 50%, your nominal return is 900% and inflation is 900%.  Thus, without the expense, your investment would give you $100 in present value (because your return and inflation are identical), and $1000 in future value.  So with the expense ratio of 50% and no change in present value, you can reason that you would expect the expense ratio will eat half the present value.  If you apply your equation and include expenses in the numerator, you end up with:  ((100 - 100(.50))*(1+9))/(1+9) = $50 present value as you would expect  If you apply the manager's assumption that fees are applied external to inflation, then you end up with:  (100 * (1 + 9))/(1+9) - (100 * (1+9) * .50) = $-400 present value.  With this example you can see applying the fees externally acts as though they are charging you the fees on future returns today.  *Edit:  It's probably not worth fighting with someone senior to you over, as inflation rates are noisy estimates to begin with and the difference between these is typically not material to the decision being made; but pissing off someone senior by showing them their math is off will probably have a material impact on you. That's completely false.  If you buy a house and live in it for 30 years, it should rise about 2-3% with inflation (neglecting any bubbles), then when you sell it, it may be worth 75 to 100% more than you paid for it.  But if you sell it for 50-60% more, you didn't actually make any money (due to inflation), you lost money, but are still expected to pay capital gains on that.