[hansvm]

That's kind of the point of inflation though, isn't it? If you accept that money exists to facilitate trade and improve on the barter system (not necessarily a reasonable assumption, especially since money is flexible enough that it could very well serve other purposes if we wanted and allowed it to), then it's a bit odd to let it hold its value in perpetuity because the delayed nature of such transactions no longer represents the barter system that money was meant to replace.

As a simplified example, suppose that 1 duck is generally worth 2 chickens and that monetary prices reflect this (e.g. ducks are worth $10 and chickens $5). I sell you a duck for $10. Time goes on, and the relative values swap -- ducks are worth $5, and chickens are worth $10. I buy two ducks from you for $10. Those two _monetary_ transactions if compressed in time into the bartering that money was meant to replace would represent me trading one of my ducks for two of yours, which assuming no other hidden variables is an unrealistic trade that would never happen.

The relative values of goods shift constantly, and arguably a dollar yesterday really isn't conceptually the same thing as a dollar today -- even though they can both be represented with the same slip of paper. Inflation is one strategy to align money more closely with its role as a medium of exchange.

standard disclaimers -- opinions are my own not my employer's, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not an economist, the above is a simplified model and blatantly ignores huge swathes of fiscal policy, ....