[lmkg]

Essentially, yes. The government printing more currency is roughly equivalent to levying a tax on all holders of that currency, in proportion to the amount held.

[tomsaffell]

..which is interesting when you consider the uproar in Cyprus over the taxing of savings accounts. "Taxing savings" sounds so much worse than "printing money", but in fact it was better in some ways, because the tax could be applied progressively[1], so that wealthier individuals were taxed proportionately higher. It's probably worse in other ways, for example it probably does more to erode confidence in the banking system overall, which is perilous.

* - I realize this wont seem 'better' to everyone, but at-least taxing savings has the option of selective application. Printing money hits everyone the same.

[Ma8ee]

It's not that simple, which the current economic situation proves. The US government has increased the amount of money several times over since the beginning of the current crisis, but the inflation is still very low. In other words, printing money isn't inflationary in the current situation. The reason for that is that the increased amount of currency doesn't manage to decrease interest rates (since it is already about zero) which normally increase demand, and without increased demand to drive increase of prices no inflation. When the economy is working "as normal" the situation is very different. Then increased availability of currency increases demand which drives the prices up. But we aren't there now.

[wolfpackk]

No, it is not equivalent, as without a constant, steady inflation rate, actors in an economy have a propensity to hoard savings, which can in turn create a viscous deflationary cycle. Economics can not, at least not any time soon, be an exact science as there are infinitely many factors at work, however, a steady, relatively predictable amount of inflation coupled with understanding the time value of money is the best approach for the foreseeable future.