For the record, in case there still are Ron Paul fans/goldbugs out there: moderate inflation is generally considered a good thing by economists today and inflation is probably too low at the moment.
One person described money as "sweat, distilled" and I find that definition incredibly attractive. I recognize that plenty of people making money not by sweating but thinking or whatever, but I still find it an excellent description. And I can't see how devaluing a person's effort over time is a viable strategy for building a lasting civilization. I think it leads inevitably towards the kind of throwaway society we have here in the US and virtually guarantees that we won't build infrastructure of long lasting value like exists elsewhere in the world. Well built stuff can last for hundreds or thousands of years. I wish money was the same.
I'll reword it for you:
'Encouraging money to be invested, by motivating people via inflation, is a good thing overall because it puts wealth to work creating jobs and stimulating economic activity.'
Thus, I think the idea that a dollar saved today can buy roughly the same amount of stuff in a decade is actually bad, because in a world where that's likely, that dollar was probably sitting useless in someone's purse for a decade.
Inflation, in my opinion, actually does the opposite of what you suggest -- because it encourages lending and investing in order to beat inflation, money is actually put to use for longer term projects such as infrastructure that can last years and years.
Because we all know banks put all the currency they receive in huge vaults filled with paper $100 bills, instead of, oh, lending it out (several times over one way or another).
Unless you're converting it all to gold, or stuffing it under a mattress, your savings are in institutions like banks which are not a sink where the velocity of your money goes to zero, outside of economic messes where they aren't willing to lend, or people are afraid to borrow. And your being encouraged to spend your money doesn't seem to help those situations.
Right?! Every bank vault is just huge piles of gold bars and ornery old men counting and recounting the money, hoarding it up and never loaning it out.
Inflation is currently bouncing between around 1.6% and 2% (but mostly towards the 1.6%). A 3 year CD at a decent bank is currently paying around 1.6%; a 5 year CD is paying around 2%. So if you're willing to commit to a 5 year deposit, you will probably beat inflation and realize a small, real return. Even an interesting-bearing checking account (with a sufficient balance...) pays close to 1.6%.
Granted, it's not the glorious 5%+ returns of yesteryear, but then, we're in a savings glut.
That's a nonsensical statement when the central bank is fully in control of the money supply, and thus, the interest rate.
That's like saying "well my computer has a billion copies of funny cat gifs on it, so there's a funny cat gif glut". It doesn't make any sense. You control how many copies of funny cat gifs are on your computer. If there are too many, it's because you made too many copies. If there are two few, it's because you made too few. Pretending that market action had anything to do with something that you are ultimately in control of makes zero sense.
The interest rate is low (or zero) because the central bank decided it should be, not because all the people in the world collectively don't have any real preference for a dollar today versus a dollar tomorrow.
The return from consumer savings accounts being near inflation / a near-zero real rate of return is because of the savings glut.
The two are related but not the same thing.
The interest rate is supposed to be the price of money. There's going to be a bid/ask spread on that because of the cost of accepting money and bundling it together, along with the cost of keeping up with the book-keeping and various other things that are costs for loans. So the rate you get paid in interest should always be less than the rate that you pay in interest. This I understand.
But if the interest rate is low, then the interest rate is low. The interest rate is determined by the aggregate supply and demand for money. If there is a lot of supply, relative to demand, then the interest rate is low. If there is a lot of demand relative to supply, then the rate is high. And given that people have a nearly infinite desire for money today versus in the future, the rate is really determined by the supply.
The Fed is in control of the supply by creating or destroying money as needed. That means that they fully and truly do set the rate, because they can do literally whatever is needed to move the needle.
The idea that everyone's individual actions to save is somehow what created the tremendous amount of expansion in the money supply (and thus the very low interest rate) is utter nonsense. The Fed created a lot of extra money which expanded the supply of loans, thus pushing down the rate.
Australia also still has a 2% official rate vs near 0 in the US.
I think the idea that a dollar today buys just as much in a decade IN NO WAY precludes people from investing their money to earn a return. It just eliminates the stupidity tax that some people pay for not understanding how things work.
In a non-inflationary environment nearly all people would still invest their money and put it to work. It's just that they wouldn't be taxed for not doing so.
Inflation doesn't encourage lending, it encourages borrowing. It's smart to pay back with dollars that are worth not as much as the dollars you borrow. Inflation actually discourages lending because you now have to find borrowers who can pay you back higher than the interest rate.
Of course, all this is predicated on a real market in interest rates which we don't have in the US because the Fed sets the rate through various means.
I might not care too much if it was $0.50 or $1 per month. But quantitative differences eventually become qualitative ones, and at this point it's not just some tiny abstract amount of money, it's real consumption that a person has to forego every month (or day!) for the sake of not getting financially ruined the first time a big unexpected expense comes up.
When I see, oh, normal genre 300-500 page paperbacks going for Amazon prices from 8-11 USD, mid '80s official inflation adjusted prices of ~$3.65-5, and lower actual prices from a quick check of my library, my response to the higher end is not no, but hell no, and I'm not going to buy the lower end new for all but the most exceptional titles.
Many economists think deflation causes people to hoard their money, since an item bought tomorrow will cost less (assuming your form of storage survives, $N in a bank that goes bust before the FDIC was established is worth $0), and the reverse for inflation. I think it's a lot more complicated than that.
When the interest rate you pay is 4%, the inflation rate is 2% and the interest that you earn is 0.25% quantitative changes become qualitative ones at numbers that seem very innocuous.
I do understand that for double-digit losses and gains things are nonlinear, in other words a 50% loss means that you need a 100% gain to offset it, and a 90% loss needs a 1000% gain to offset. But in the single digits, this is very close to linear. If you lose 5%, then gaining back 5% leaves you very close to even.
If 2% compounded deflation is the end of society, how can 2% compounded inflation be the savior?
The reason is that ~90% of the money that exists needs to be continuously rolled over into new loans to maintain the total supply (and it actually needs to increase a bit [ie. inflation]). At any given time, only a small fraction (~10%) of the total supply is available to make the upcoming interest & principal payments. If new loans don't roll out in time (to replace the money destroyed by the principal payments), you can enter a situation where there is no legally manifestible currency (banks are completely insolvent) without some seriously disturbing hackery and deception.
You begin to hit serious problems (many individual actors will fail due to 0 flow) before you even get to that point. This is just the ultimate fate of our economy.
Edit: What we really need are accurate and accessible simulations of our economy so that everyone has a chance to understand it.
The money isn't destroyed. It's back in the hands of the lender, available to do whatever they'd like with it. Perhaps they'd invest it into a factory or a business that they own, instead of just loaning it out. That would mean it'd be spent on real things in the real world, thus meeting the criteria of not being destroyed and being spent.
What? How does that have any bearing on reality? The values of mortgages a bank has on its books aren't a reflection of how much reserves it has, it's a reflection of the dollar values attached to the loans.
How many loans a bank can write in a month is of course dependent upon how much money the bank has sitting around in excess of the reserves it is required to keep. But again, that doesn't dictate the dollar values on the loans. Those were fixed at signing and in the absence of problems, get smaller at a predictable rate. What do reserves have to do with the loan equations?
There's no symmetry between inflation and deflation. Your incredulity is unwarranted.
Money is an accounting method to enable easy trade. Ordinarily, it's worthless, which makes it available to be used in transactions. Under deflation, money gains an inherent value -- you can multiply your worth by holding on to the money you have now. This means that much less trade occurs, because the gains from that trade are less than the gains from holding on to your cash while it appreciates. But the gains from cash appreciation are in an important sense hallucinatory -- on a system level, they don't exist -- and the gains from trade are real, so the economy just ends up being crippled.
The other thing to consider is that any decision to wait has an opportunity cost, and the baseline opportunity cost is captured by the interest rate. Since nobody is going to stop charging interest to borrow money - even in sharia finance you pay a rental cost for money that is very very similar to interest - it would seem as if price inflation was an unavoidable characteristic of any system involving credit or loans.
Gold as currency had lots of really negative effects, read up on the populist movement in the late 19th century U.S. and the background of the "Wizard of Oz" story.