Is inflation a good or bad thing? Why do governments want some inflation?
"Sensitive topic ;) Inflation is a consequence of the mismatch between supply and demand.  In an ideal world the amount of goods available would exactly match the demand for those goods.   We don't live in an ideal world. One example of oversupply is dollar stores where you can buy remainders from companies that misjudged demand.  Most recently we've seen wheat prices rise as fires outside Moscow damaged the harvest and the Russian government banned exports. And that introduces the danger of inflation. Inflation is a signal, like the pain you feel after an injury.  If you simply took a painkiller you may completely ignore a broken leg until gangrene took your life. Governments sometimes ""ban"" inflation by fixing prices.  Both the Zimbabwean and Venezuelan governments have tried this recently.  The consequence of that is goods become unavailable as producers refuse to create supply for less than the cost of production. As CrimonsX pointed out, governments do desperately want to avoid deflation as much as they want to avoid hyperinflation. There is a ""correct"" level and that has resulted in the monetary policy called ""Inflation targetting"" where central banks attempt to manage inflation into a target range (usually around 2% to 6%). The reason is simply that limited inflation drives investment and consumption.  With a guaranteed return on investment people with cash will lend it to people with ideas.  Consumers will buy goods today if they fear that the price will rise tomorrow. If prices fall (as they have done during the two decades of deflation in Japan) then the result is lower levels of investment and employment as companies cut production capacity.  If prices rise to quickly (as in Zimbabwe and Venezuela) then people cannot save enough or earn enough and so their wealth is drained away. Add to this the continual process of innovation and you see how difficult it is to manage inflation at all.  Innovation can result in increased efficiency which can reduce prices.  It can also result in a new product which is sufficiently unique to allow predatory pricing (the Apple iPhone, new types of medicines, and so on). The best mechanism we have for figuring out where money should be invested and who is the best recipient of any good is the price mechanism.  Inflation is the signal that investors need to learn how best to manage their efforts. We hide from it at our peril." "Basically, in any financial system that features fractional reserve banking, the monetary supply expands during times of prosperity. Stable, low inflation of 2-4% keeps capital available while keeping the value of money stable. It also discourages hoarding of wealth. Banks aren't vaults. They take deposits and make an explicit promise to repay the depositor on demand. Since most depositors don't need to withdraw money regularly, the lend out the money you deposited and maintain a reserve sufficient to meet daily cash needs. When times are good, banks lend to people and businesses who need capital, who in turn do things that add value to the overall economy. When times are bad, people and businesses either cannot get capital or pay more for it, which reduces the number of times that money changes hands and has a negative impact on the wider economy. People who are trying to sell you commodities or who have a naive view of how the economy actually works decry the current monetary system and throw around scary words like ""fiat currency"" and ""inflation is theft"". What these people don't realize is that before the present system, where the value of money is based on promises to repay, the gold and silver backed systems also experienced inflation. With gold/silver based money, inflation was driven by discoveries of gold and silver deposits" "Inflation, like trade deficits or surpluses, have winners and losers in an economy. Clear losers are people who are on a fixed income, as they often have a fixed income and a prices keep on going up, meaning they can afford less.  Numerous articles on the internet discuss the inflation of the 1970s, here are Google's results.  I'm not so sure that governments want ""some inflation"" as much as they desperately want to avoid deflation. Deflation means that the price for today's product, like a car, will decrease in price tomorrow (or a month from now) which creates a powerful incentive for people to put off a purchase until later, which brings consumer demand down in a country's economy." "Although there are some good points made here as to the cause of inflation (mostly related to supply and demand), azcoastal does head in a different direction, one which I myself was going to take. Let me give a different angle, however. Another cause of inflation is the printing of money by the government (not simply replacing old money with new, but adding to the total money in circulation). If the government doubles the amount of currency in circulation (for the sake of argument and easy math), the value of all money decreases by a factor of 2. That's inflation, and the way G. Edward Griffin in The Creature From Jekyll Island puts it, it's really tantamount to a hidden tax. In a nutshell, the federal government wants to buy some cool stuff like new tanks or planes, or they want to give a bunch of food stamps to poor people, or they want to fly their private jets around, but they don't have enough money from taxes. So, they print money and spend it and buy their stuff. Because they've just increased the money in circulation, however, money loses its value. For example, your savings has dropped in value by half, despite the fact that the same number of dollars is in your savings account. This is just a way the government can tax you without taxing you. They buy stuff and you now have less money (i.e., your retirement is worth less) and you don't even know you just got taxed. Makes me sick that we let our ""leaders"" get away with this." Inflation is what happens, it is not good or bad in and of itself.  But consider the following. In a thriving economy with low unemployment, people are buying, buying, buying.  People are not saving for later, they are buying now.  Industry is also making purchases.  Now.  From economics 101: high demand for goods/services leads to relative scarcity leading to higher prices.  Inflation tends to be one byproduct of a thriving economy.  Governments want the thriving economy that brings inflation with it. "The classic definition of inflation is ""too much money chasing too few goods.""  Within a tight range, say 1-3%, inflation is somewhat benign.  There's a nice inflation widget at The Inflation Calculator which helps me see that an item costing $1000 in 1975 would now (2010) be about $4000, and $1000 from 1984 till now, just over $2000. I chose those two years to make a point. First, I am 48, I graduated college in 1984, so in my working life I've seen the value of the dollar drop by half. On the other hand it only took 9 years from 75-84 to see a similar amount of inflation occur.  I'd suggest that the 26 year period is far more acceptable than the 9. Savers should be aware of their real return vs what was a result of inflation. I'm not incensed either way but logically have to acknowledge the invisible tax of inflation. I get a (say) 6% return, pay 2% in tax, but I'm not ahead by 4%, 3% may be lost to inflation. On the flip side, my mortgage is 3.5%, after taxes that's 2.625%, but less than 0% after (long term) inflation. So as a debtor, I am benefiting by the effect of inflation on what I owe.  Interesting also to hear about deflation as we've grown used to it in the case of electronics but little else. Perhaps the iPad won't drop in price, but every year it will gain features and competitors will keep the tablet market moving. Yet people still buy these items.  Right now, there's not enough spending. I'd suggest that, good financial advice aside, people as a whole need to start spending to get the economy moving. The return of some inflation would be a barometer of that spending starting to occur." "In general the consensus is that a small amount of inflation (usually 1.5-2% per year) is desirable.  That is why the Federal Reserve sets its inflation target in that range.  The reasons why are quite complex though. One reason is ""wage stickiness"" - ie., the observed phenomenon that employers don't like to cut wages.  Having a small rate of inflation means that when wages are steady in nominal terms, they are actually falling in real terms.  This gives employers more flexibility." Inflation is an increase in the money supply.  Increases in consumer prices follow from inflation.  It's not the same as inflation. Some inflation is necessary for a growing economy.  If your gross national product is only $1,000, then you can get away with having less money than if your gross national product is $1 trillion. Inflation beyond this, though, is used to allow governments to live beyond their means.  If there is more money chasing the same amount of goods, prices will rise.  There is truth in what azcoastal says about this kind of inflation.  It's theft. Governments like inflation because it allows them to pay off their debts with cheaper money. If there's no inflation (or alternately there's deflation) people would tend to sit on money and wait for the prices to drop. This in pretty bad for pricier stuff like real estate/housing industry where a few percent can make a big difference.  For a growing economy a small inflation is good as people would go out and buy new stuff when they want it knowing they will not get a better deal if they wait a year or so. "Inflation is a bad thing.  It makes it much more difficult for people to compare prices and prosperity over a long period of time.  This causes people to ignore the wisdom of their elders (who remember prices from a long time ago). Back in my day, you could get a burger and fries for 15 cents -- a dime for the burger, and a nickel for the fries.   But the minimum wage was only a quarter an hour!  That doesn't help me decide if things have gotten better or worse. How long is ""a long period of time""?  That depends on the inflation rate. At 1 percent per year, 50 or 100 years is ""a long time"". At 10 percent per year, 5 or 10 years. At 100 percent per year, a few months. Because of the Spanish conquests of gold and silver mines in Mexico and Peru, prices in the sixteenth century rose by a factor of 5.5 during the century.  This inflation was recognized as causing lots of social and governmental problems.  Note that this means an average inflation rate of 2 percent per year for a century is known to be a very bad thing. There are several reasons that most governments want some inflation:" Inflation is theft!  It is caused when banks lend money that someone deposited, but still has claim to - called fractional reserve banking.   On top of that, the Federal Reserve Bank (in the US) or the Central Bank of the currency (i.e. Bank of Japan, European Central Bank, etc.) can increase the monetary base by writing checks out of thin air to purchase debt, such as US Treasury Bonds. Inflation is not a natural phenomenon, it is completely man-made, and is caused solely by the two methods above. Inflation causes the business cycle.  Lower interest rates caused by inflation cause long-term investment, even while savings is actually low and consumption is high.  This causes prices to rise rapidly (the boom), and eventually, when the realization is made that the savings is not there to consume the products of the investment, you get the bust. I would encourage you to read or listen to The Case Against the Fed by Murray N. Rothbard - Great book, free online or via iTunes.
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. Huh? I don't see how this effects inflation in practice.... (only in theory)  Basically, I sell short end bonds and buy longer end bonds pocketing the difference in yield and increasing my duration.  GLD and mining are hedges against inflation, markets are stupidly short term looking and care only about current expectations, if the current macro situation deteoriates we see prices fall. You can't really avoid inflation. As the population grows, the amount of money needed will grow as well (because the people will grow up and go to work and earn money, and someone has to create it to pay them). One of the definitions of inflation is increasing amount of money. Increasing amount of money causes devaluation (for example, if instead of 1000 dollars we now have 2000 dollars in circulation, because the population tripled in the last 50 years, while in Russia the population remained the same and they have the same 1000 rubles as they had 50 years ago - 1 ruble will no longer cost 1 dollar, but rather 2, i.e.: prices rise). This is very simplified of course, and there are a lot of causes and triggers for inflation. Inflation, when controlled and within certain limits is necessary for growth, as mentioned, but when uncontrolled and very high it causes a lot of damage, and that's what troubles people about inflation, not its mere existence. As to bringing the prices down- the prices don't go down, the  gallon of gas will not go back to $0.25. It's just the buying power of the money goes down, because of inflation. You could buy a gallon of gas for 0.25 50 years ago, but you had to work for 1/2 hour to earn these 0.25. Now you have to pay $4, but if you still need to work for 1/2 hour for that, then the price didn't rise, effectively. There is empirical evidence of a correlation between independence of central banks and lower unemployment, lower inflation, and more stable prices.  The argument as to why this is comes from when govts control central banking more stongly, then politicians get involved, and they vote for more/easier money, which looks good in the short run, thereby getting them votes, but causes inflation/unemployment/price volatility in the long run. When governments control banking you sometimes end up with Zimbabwe stlye inflation (well, not as bad as Zimbabwe often, but without the govt able to add money at will it is much harder).  A significant feature of most successful modern central banks is to remove the control from the hands of ametuers, i.e., politicians, and put control into the hands of skilled economists. Ever notice the Fed chairman (and many of the board) are actually very well trained economists?  Full transparency is also bad since some areas of monetary policy need knowledge to be kept from the markets in order to be effective, otherwise the Fed loses some of the tools they need to try and target inflation.  Finally, there are quite a lot of regulations that the Fed does follow, including regular outside audits, that keep them in check. "Inflation means that the more money you create, the less it has value. To that I say, ""Meh.""   A funnier way of gaining wealth, which is the ultimate goal to stealing currency, would be to gain a great deal of money (through robbery or other means) then attempt to trigger a deflationary spiral while sitting on the cash. Sure it might be difficult, but I'm pretty sure the key is jacking up Fed interest rates and blowing up money printers." "Inflation is an attempt to measure how much less money is worth. It is a weighted average of some bundle of goods and services price's increase.  Money's value is in what you can exchange it for, so higher prices means money is worth less. Monthly inflation is quoted either as ""a year, ending on that month"" or ""since the previous month"".  As the values differ by more than a factor of 10, you can usually tell which one is being referred to when they say ""inflation in August was 0.4%, a record high"" or ""inflation in August was 3.6%"".  You do need some context of the state of the economy, and how surprised the people talking about the numbers are.  Sometimes they refer to inflation since the last month, and then annualize it, which adds to the confusion. ""Consumer Inflation""'s value depends on what the basket of goods is, and what you define as the same ""good"".  Is a computer this year the same as the last?  If the computer is 10x faster, do you ignore that, or factor it in? What basket do you use?  The typical monthly consumables purchased by a middle class citizen?  By a poor citizen?  By a rich citizen?  A mixture, and if so which mixture? More detailed inflation figures can focus on inflation facing each quntile of the population by household income, split durable goods from non-durable goods from services, split wage from non-wage inflation, ignore volatile things like food and energy, etc. Inflation doesn't directly cause prices to raise; instead it is a measure of how much raise in prices happened.  It can easily be a self-fullfilling prophesy, as inflation expectations can lead to everyone automatically increasing the price they charge for everything (wages, goods, etc). Inflation can be viewed as a measurement of the ""cost of holding cash"".  At 10% inflation per year, holding a million dollars in cash for a year costs you 100,000$ in buying power.  At 1% inflation it costs 10,000$.  At 0.1% inflation, 1000$. Inflation of 10% in one year, followed by 10% the next, adds up to 1.1*1.1-1 = 21% inflation over the two years.  For low inflation numbers this acts a lot like adding; the further from 0% you get the more the lower-order terms make the result larger.  1% inflation for two years adds up to 2.01%, 10% over two years 21%, 100% over two years 300%, 1000% over two years 12000%, etc.  (and yes, some places suffer 1000% inflation)" 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. Question:  So basically the money created in this globalized digital world where capital is free to roam,  it is referring to digital money and not actual physical cash.  So the goldbugs that talk about america becoming weimar republic is delusional, since there isn't enough physical cash in relations to how big the economy is.    And it is actually the debt lending that acts as a derivative of cash money that goes around posing as the money supply or the blood supply of an economy, and that feels like inflation, but when the debt is defaulted on or destroyed, underwritten or even paid back closing the circuit then it's deflationary?   But does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off?  You know, when debts are paid off they are taken out of the system. "There are several causes of inflation. One is called cost push — that is, if the price of e.g. oil goes up sharply (as it did in the 1970s), it creates inflation by making everything cost more. Another is called demand pull: if labor unions bargain for higher wages (as they did in the 1960s), their wage costs push up prices, especially after they start buying. The kind of inflation that the banks cause is monetary inflation. That is, for every dollar of deposits, they can make $5 or $10 of loans. So even though they don't ""print"" money (the Fed does) it's as if they did. The result could be the kind of inflation called ""too much money chasing too few goods.""" I'm not sure what point you think I was making. It looks like you think I'm supporting the idea that QE causes inflation, which it doesn't. At least not when it is being used as it has been. What it does seem to have done is depress interest rates and create a speculative market that doesn't match up with economic reality. It has also created a ridiculous profit loop for investment banks selling bonds to the Fed.  You can't talk about QE without mentioning that banks are now incentivized to hold onto reserves because they can collect interest. So the banks screwed up, were heavily subsidized under the pretense of it being best for the taxpayer, and were then rewarded for sitting on all of that money.   If I support any viewpoint it is this. The government agreed to give the banks a thin veneer of solvency by granting them enormous sums in a short period. Obviously if that much currency went straight into the market it would be a disaster, so it put a mechanism in place to reward them for holding onto it. All QE did was massively increase the debt burden of the government, which will be passed on to taxpayers in the form of taxes, fines, fewer benefits, worsening infrastructure, and more restrictions. QE may have not caused inflation, but it certainly didn't help the vast majority of Americans who will simply see their standard of living decline at a quicker pace. I'm sure this will get blamed on immigrants or something instead of the reality that our government is tacitly rewarding banks for not lending to individuals. Why would they? An individual might not pay them back, but the government always will by simply extracting more out of those very individuals. Any such number would depend on the country, the market, and the economic situation - especially inflation ratio. Generally, if you are not in a booming or a dying technology, getting a raise above the inflation ratio is 'good'; anything below is poor. u just dont understand how money works.  u think u do, but u dont.  u dont even understand the problem.   the govt printed over 7 trillion, where is the hyperinflation?   explain to me what caused the inflation from 2001 to 2007 up until the bubble collapse and financial collapse of 2008.    and don't say fed 'money printing' coz it ain't true. don't say fractional reserve multiplier effect, coz that ain't true either.  see u don't even know.  if u keep arguing with me ur gonna get embarassed.  if u ask nicely, maybe i'll tell u. "I don't think QE ""masks"" inflation.  The upward wage pressures to create inflation simply aren't there, and for that reason an increase in the monetary base is non-inflationary (as we've seen).  Only during the exit, if the banks flood the economy with their excess reserves, could we see higher-than-moderate inflation" The problem is that at full employment demand in the market is supposed to increase as people spend money. More money in the market means more inflation, but because wages have not risen even at full unemployment inflation is not rising.   If it is not rising the problem is that it might really be deflating, deflation is the enemy of the rich as the price for goods, services and assets decline. Inflation is bad for people with lots of cash assets. It's good for debtors, particularly debtors with unsecured debt.