Why does money value normally decrease?
"Your house doesn't need to multiply in order to earn a return. Your house can provide shelter. That is not money, but is an economic good and can also save you money (if you would otherwise pay rent). This is the primary form of return on the investment for many houses. It is similar for other large capital investments - like industrial robots, washing machines, or automobiles. The value of money depends on: As long as the size and velocity of the money supply changes about as much as the overall economic activity changes, everything is pretty much good. A little more and you will see the money lose value (inflation); a little less and the money will gain value (deflation).  As long as the value of inflation or deflation remains very low, the specifics matter relatively little. Prices (including wages, the price of work) do a good job of adjusting when there is inflation or deflation. The main problem is that people tend to use money as a unit of account, e.g. you owe $100,000 on your mortgage, I have $500 in the bank. Changing the value of those numbers makes it really hard to plan for the future! Imagine if prices and wages fell in half: it would be twice as hard to pay off your mortgage. Or if the bank expected massive inflation in the future: they would want to charge you a lot more interest! Presently, inflation is the norm because the government entities, who help adjust how much money there will be (through monetary policy - interest rates and the like - ask about it if you're interested), will generally gradually increase the supply of money a little bit more quickly than the economy in general. They may also be worried that outright deflation over the long term will lead to people postponing purchases (to get more for their money later), harming overall economic activity, so they tend to err on the slightly positive side. The value of money, however, has not really ""ordinarily decreased"" until the modern era (the 1930s or so). During much of history, a relatively low fixed amount of valuable commodities (gold) served as money. When the economy grew, and the same amount of money represented more economic activity, the money became more valuable, and deflation ensued. This could have the unfortunate effect of deterring investment, because rich jerks with lots of money could see their riches increase just by holding on to those riches instead of doing anything productive with them. And changes in the supply of gold wreaked havoc with the money supply whenever there was some event like a gold rush: Because precious metals were at the base of the monetary   system, rushes increased the money supply which resulted in inflation.   Soaring gold output from the California and Australia gold rushes is   linked with a thirty percent increase in wholesale prices between 1850   and 1855. Likewise, right at the end of the nineteenth century a surge   in gold production reversed a decades-long deflationary trend and is   often credited with aiding indebted farmers and helping to end the   Populist Party’s strength and its call for a bimetallic (gold and   silver) money standard. -- The California Gold Rush Today, there is way too little gold production to represent all the growth in world economic activity - but we don't have a gold standard anymore, so gold is valuable on its own merits, because people want to buy it using money, and its price is free to fluctuate. When it gets more valuable, and people pay more for it, mines will go through more effort to locate, extract and refine it because it will be more profitable. That's how most commodities work. For more information on these tidbits of history, some in-depth articles on:" You expect interest because you forgo the opportunity of using the money as well as the risk of losing the money if the borrower can not pay you back.  This is true also with gold - you would expect interest if you loaned someone your gold for a time period. When you deposit your money in the bank you are loaning your money to the bank who then loans the money to others.  This is how the bank is able to pay interest on your accounts. "You get paid interest on deposits because banks only keep a fraction of the deposits on-hand. The rest is put to other uses, such as loaning money to others. If you deposit money and yield 1% interest, the bank is able to fund an auto loan, at 5%. By saving, you are actually making more capital available in the marketplace. ""Fixed"" or ""durable"" assets like gold, real property, or durable goods are different -- their value is based on attributes such as demand (gold, oil) or location (real property). If you bought an apartment in Manhattan in 1975, it appreciated greatly in value over the course of 30 years... but it did so because demand for apartments in New York City grew, while the supply of apartments grew more slowly. The government prints money for two core reasons: Think of it this way: Money is valuable because it is money." The reason is governments print extra money to cause inflation (hopefully reasonable) so that people don't just sit comfortably but do something to make money work. Thus inflation is an artificial measure which leads to money value gradually decreasing and causing people invest money in one way or another to beat inflation or maybe even gain some more money. Printing money is super cheap unlike producing any kind of commodity and that makes money different from commodities - commodities have their inherent value, but money has only nominal value, it's an artificial government-controlled product. It is in circles. Today Money is fiat money. From economic stand point a moderate inflation is good. It there is near zero inflation or deflation, then economy would come to standstill and would stagnate. Hence everything has to becomes expensive. This keeps the economy in motion. House or Gold does increase in value otherwise one would not have purchased them. If you are saying on buying a house, you keep it with someone and after a period of time you get one extra room or keep an ounce of gold and after some years it becomes 2 ounce, well it does increase but differently. There reason there aren't many such schemes is because quantifying it is difficult. It would normally fetch more money than one had bought it for. "Currently, the quantity theory of money is widely accepted as an accurate model of inflation in the long run. Consequently, there is now broad agreement among economists that in the long run, the inflation rate is essentially dependent on the growth rate of money supply. However, in the short and medium term inflation may be affected by supply and demand pressures in the economy, and influenced by the relative elasticity of wages, prices and interest rates - Wikipedia: Inflation causes You also asked ""can you give any reference that explains that this [encouraging people to work] is one of the reasons government prints money?"" See the list of positive effects of inflation in that article."
I guess other than tradition and inflation, probably because the merchants want them.   In the US, what currently costs $2.00 used to cost $0.10.   So 75 years ago, those individual cents made a pretty bid difference.  Inflation causes prices to go up, but doesn't get us to just change our currencies patterns. In your example, you are assuming that in an average day, the rounding errors you are willing to accept happen a couple of times.  2 or 3 cents here and there mean nothing to you.  However to the merchant, doing hundreds or thousands of transactions per day, those few cents up and down mean quite a bit in terms of profit. To an individual, looking at a time frame more than a single day (because who only participates in economies for a single day) there are potentially millions of transactions in a lifetime, mean potentially giving away millions of dollars because they didn't want to wait. And as for the comment that people working each 3 cents every 10 seconds, I would assume at least some of the time when they are waiting for rounding errors, they are not at work getting paid.  That concept is assuming that somebody is always willing to pay them for their time regardless of where that person is in the world; I have no facts and wild assumptions, but surely that can't be true for even a majority of workers. Finally, you should be happy if you happy to have an income high enough that you don't care about individual cents.  But there are those business people who see opportunity in folks like you and profit greatly from it.  I personally worry very much about who has my money; gov't gets paid to the penny and I expect returns to the penny.  A super polite service employee who smiled a lot serving me a beer is getting all the rounding errors I have. "The time value of money is very important in understanding this issue.  Money today is worth more than money next year, two years from now, etc. It's a well understood economics concept, and well worth reading about if you have some, well, time. Not only is money literally worth more now than later due to inflation, but there is the simple fact that, assuming you have money for the purpose of doing something, being able to do that thing today is better than doing that same thing tomorrow.  ""A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"" gets to this rather directly; having it now is better than probably having it later.  Would you rather have a nice meal tonight, or eat beans and rice tonight and then have the same nice meal next year? That's why interest exists, in part: you're offered some money now, for more money later; or in the case of buying a bond, you're offered more money later for some money now.  The fact that people have different discount rates for money later is why the loan market can exist: people with more money than they can use now have a lower discount for future money than people who really need money right now (to buy a house, to pay their rent, whatever).   So when choosing to buy a bond, you look at the money you're going to get, both over the short term (the coupon rate) and the long term (the face value), and you consider whether $80 now is worth $100 in 20 years, plus $2 per year.  For some people it is - for some people it isn't, and that's why the price is as it is ($80).  Odds are if you have a few thousand USD, you're probably not going to be interested in this - or if you have a very long term outlook; there are better ways to make money over that long term.  But, if you're a bank needing a secure investment that won't lose value, or a trust that needs high stability, you might be willing to take that deal." It means that your money does not have the same amount of buying power. I think precious metals as an investment might set one up for disappointment.  Why does it seem to continually decline despite the variance?  As many have noted, there isn't much productive use for precious metals, and no major wars are taking place, so they aren't being used as currency substitutes, not to mention that more is being pulled out of the ground every day. The real reason why this graph shows silver to decline in real value over time is because its using a suboptimal price index.  An optimal one would most likely show a stable price over the long run. Silver is a great speculation if one can determine with high confidence the direction. "There are a few different ways you can look at this.  You can't really take money out of the economy, as it can't ""leave society"" and the economy is the interaction of society. One example kind of close to this was a multi-millionaire died without an heir with millions in his bank account. The bank will continue to use the funds, but the money itself won't be spent. Some people saw this as a ""waste"", like value was lost, but really all it does (hoarding money or even burning it) is change the money supply.  That being said there are two approaches to looking at capitalism as a *balanced* ecosystem. One is Keynesianism, which focuses on demand. The other is Marxism, which focuses on more internal mechanisms of capitalism. Both are concerned with inequality.  With high inequality, those with capital tend to have more reinvestment as a percentage of income/wealth. With a return on investment this will increase inequality. The Keynesian issue is that this will lower demand, creating imbalance in the economy and long-term problems to function. The answer was more redistribution and higher labor wages.  For Marxists, they believe that capitalism generates endless ""capital accumulation"", not because of a demand component, but because of labor theory of value. That wealth and value is not determined by the market, but at exploitation of labor. On this critical side you have critiques of the fetishism of market value. With high inequality you have money ""leaving the system"" in what some call waste--something not socially useful. Baran and Sweezy in ""Monopoly Capital"" talk about this in the form of things like military spending, and, I think, advertisement. But it can also relate to the generation of ""wealth"" (opposed to income). Things that don't hold inherent value, like art, becomes investment. You can't say it is ""taken out of "" the economy, but the value itself is generated by those who can purchase it. Though, I believe this value fetishism is more an outcome of the contradictions, rather than the cause.  What it does contribute to contradictions, however, is the rise of speculation. Rather than consumption or productive investment, accumulation will increasingly become speculative. Real estate is usually the primary example. Many people buy houses, condos, or land, not for use, but for the expectation that the value will go up. When bad enough this can reshape the market, so for people who aren't investing their rent/living cost increases.   This likewise happens with stocks and other financial investments. Again, it can't really ""leave the economy"", but it makes it more difficult for the ""traditional"" or productive and labor economy to operate." That value differs between a starving man and a man who never fears lack of food.  Let's take, instead, the value of your mother's affection.  Were you to have to pay for that affection, for her hugs, they would lose value.  Offering a price makes her affection worth LESS.  Therefore value is not tied to currency, nor is value indelibly tied to Capitalism.  Trading capital for your mother's affection negates the value of the affection. "If you think your cash will buy fewer goods in the future due to inflation, are there goods you will want or need in the future that you can purchase now? I think the cost of storage would need to be less than the inflation in price for this to make sense. If you used commodity trading there may not actually be a storage cost but likely some fees involved that would need to be weighed against the expected inflation. Basically if ""things"" are going to cost more in the future, making your cash worth less, can you convert cash into ""things"" before prices escalate?" As the value of a currency declines, commodities, priced in that currency, will rise. The two best commodities to see a change in would be oil and gold. I think part of the confusion is due to the age of the term and how money has changed over time relative to being backed by precious metals vs using central banks etc. Historically: Because historically the coin itself was precious metal, if a change occurred between the 'face value' of the coin and value of the precious metal itself, the holder of the coin was less affected since they have the precious metal already in hand. They could always trade it based on the metal value instead of the face value. OTOH if you buy a note worth an the current price of ounce of gold, and the price of gold goes up, and then the holder wants to redeem the note, they end up with less than an ounce of gold. In the more modern age  The main concern is the cost to borrow funds to put money into circulation, or the gain when it goes out of circulation.  The big difference between the two is that bills tend stay in circulation until they wear out, have to be bought back and replaced.  Coins on the other hand last longer, but have a tendency to drop out of circulation due to collectors (especially with 'collectible series' coins that the mint seems to love to issue lately).  This means that bills issued tend to stay in circulation, while only a percentage of coins stays in circulation.  So the net effect on the money supply is different for the two, and since modern 'seigniorage' is all about the cost to put money in circulation, it is different in the case of coins where some percentage will not remain circulating. "Once a currency loses value, it never regains it. Period. Granted there have been short term periods of deflation, as well as periods where, due to relative value fluctuation, a currency may temporarily gain value against the U.S. dollar (or Euro, Franc, whatever) but the prospect of a currency that's lost 99.99% of its value will reclaim any of that value is an impossibility. Currency is paper. It's not stock. It's not a hard commodity. It has no intrinsic value, and no government in history has ever been motivated to ""re-value"" its currency. Mind you, there have been plenty of ""reverse splits"" where a government will knock off the extraneous zeroes to make handling units of the currency more practical." If that fraction is really small, then the amount of gold can be thought of as relatively constant. That fraction is very small. After all, people have been mining gold for thousands of years. So the cumulative results of gold mining have been building up the supply for quite some time. Meanwhile, owners of gold rarely destroy it. A little bit of gold is used in some industries as a consumable. This limited consumption of gold offsets some of the production that comes from mining. But truthfully this effect is minuscule. For the most part people either hoard it like its made of gold, or sell it (after all it is worth its weight in gold). If you're interested Wikipedia lists a few more factors that affect gold prices. (If you're not interested Wikipedia lists them anyway.) Besides overnight news events and auction mechanisms there is a more fundamental reason the price of a stock is always moving.  Theoretically the stock price will move slightly even in the unlikely scenario that absolutely nothing of interest happens during the entire night.  Let me go into that in some more detail: Stock valuation using Discounted Cash FLow One of the fundamental reasons that stock value is constantly changing is because underneath every stock there is a company that expects to make some kind of profit or loss in the future. We have to go into the fundamentals of stock value to understand why this is important: One popular way to determine the value of a stock is by looking into the future and summing up all the earnings (or cashflows) it has yet to produce. You have to reduce each amount by a certain factor that gets larger for payments that are farther into the future. Think of it this way: a dollar in hand now is better than a dollar that you get tomorrow. This method of valuation is called Discounted Cash Flow (abbr. DCF; see the wikipedia article on DCF) Time's effect on stock value Now take the Close price C, and the open price O. Let's assume that since there has been no news, the expectations for future earnings are the same for C and O. Remember that the discounting factor for these earnings is dependent on the time until the cashflow occurs? For O, this time is slightly shorter than for C, and therefore the value will be slightly higher (or lower, when the company is expected to incur losses). So now you can see that even without all the external forces that continuously push and pull on the stock price, a stock still changes in value over time. Hope this helps. Money itself has no value. A gold bar is worth (fuzzy rushed math, could be totally wrong on this example figure) $423,768.67. So, a 1000 dollars, while worthless paper, are a token saying that you own %.2 of a gold bar in the federal reserve. If a billion dollars are printed, but no new gold is added to the treasury, then your dollar will devalue, and youll only have %.1 percent of that gold bar (again, made up math to describe a hypothetical). When dollars are introduced into the economy, but gold has not been introduced to back it up, things like the government just printing dollars or banks inventing money out of debt (see the housing bubble), then the dollar tokens devalue further. TL;DR: Inflation is the ratio of actual wealth in the Treasury to the amount of currency tokens the treasury has printed. "Paraphrased from Economics of Money, Banking and Financial Markets: Money is (1) a medium of exchange, (2) a unit of account, (3) a store of value.  To the first point: as Homer Simpson's brain explained to him ""Money can be exchanged for goods and services"".  The second: money acts as a measure to keep track of the relative worth of an enormous amount of items. This makes it much simpler than tracking how many apples are worth how many deerhides, and so on and so forth as occurs in barter economies.  The last point: money is a terrible store of value. Your money tends to inflate, meaning that its worth decreases over time.  I think your explanation went into territory that it didn't need to. Your explanation of the creation of money for example seems to imply that the banking system is not involved in the process of money creation when actually the opposite is true." &gt;you can have the exact same scenario I described above in a competing currency system.  Not for a lengthy period of time, or in massive amounts (as we see today).  &gt;Typically the Cantillion Effect has bankers disadvantaged because they get their interest payment after the inflation effects prices. It is the primary loan receiver who gets the best value.  I encourage you to watch this short video, to understand how the transfer of wealth to bankers occurs:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx16a72j__8