Inflation also is a way to get rid of debt. A few years with 10% inflation would do wonders for the debt of most countries, provided that their debt is in their own currency.
On the other hand, growing the money supply too quickly when there's no economic growth leads to a situation like Zimbabwe...
But yes, 'too quickly' is not a good idea.
Of course not. Inflation is a symptom and not a cause. If lower inflation or even deflation lead to growth, then a penny should still have value, and a dollar should be a good amount of money (we've abolished 1 cent coins altogether, and a dollar buys very little). But our economy has grown a lot since the 1950's, and inflation has happened.
Inflation is caused by many things. In Zimbabwe's case, they tried to print money to finance various things. With no underlying value, the money quickly devalued.
In the case of Canada, the US and other western nations, we've enjoyed economic growth, but because demand for goods and services has generally outpaced supply, prices have gone up. Right now where I live, an 'average' house costs $450K.
Anyhow, thanks for the link, but I've spent too much time looking at Solow equations for my liking (currently doing a degree in economics).
Hyperinflation is just a good apocalyptic narrative device, and people (ab)use it.
edit: s/has/had
10% inflation is equivalent to a person's salary going down by 10%. Also, any savings you had would be eaten up by 10%. Inflation is the same as taking people's money to pay debt. It's not some magic thing that makes debt go poof.
The clear winners will be those with relatively high debts, the losers those who have been saving, but not investing.
Is it fair to tax the ants while rescuing the grasshoppers? No, but if the country as a whole is a grasshopper, it may be the best one can do.
A side effect of this strategy is that it teaches ants to invest, rather than put money in the bank. That's another reason why many countries aim for inflation.