Nanoprobe makes some very good points. I believe there is also a number of other, sometimes conflicting, factors at work. It is the stated opinion of Mr. Bernanke and the Fed that current inflation is too low and they(the Fed) need to guard against deflation. The reasoning is that if people believe prices will be lower in the future they will hoard their money awaiting the lower prices, therefore causing the economy to contract because people have cut back their spending. The argument for inflation goes the opposite, with people believing if prices are going to be higher tomorrow, they should spend now rather than wait. This also holds for borrowing, because you can borrow with today's dollars and pay back with tomorrow's cheaper dollars due to inflation. In other words, inflation benefits the debtor. (And we all know who the world's biggest debtor is - the U.S.). This is way simplified and there is enough to be said on various ways of looking at this to fill many volumes.
For instance there are products and services I can buy today either much cheaper now or that were totally unavailable years ago at any price. The immediate example which comes to mind is computing power. In 1930 it required an army of pencil pushers, in 1960 it required millions of dollars and glassed in rooms, and today for $300 I can get something that will make the best thing available in 1960 look like a horse and buggy.
The figures Nanoprobe has are averages across a basket of goods and services. Some items cost more today and some items cost less.
Personally, I think, especially for people like me, with no debt, I am getting hosed by any talk of trying to get inflation higher. There is virtually no incentive to save. Borrow more and spend faster seems to be what the policy makers are telling us. I think what most people want is price stability and innovation to make goods and services better and cheaper. Then we are all better off.
By the way compare today's price of gold today with where it was a year ago. One dollar buys more gold today than a year ago.
Cheers

Inflation is a universal phenomenon since virtually all major currencies are fiat currencies. So while you can point to the relative value of the dollar over history, I don't see what that proves.

If a cup of coffee cost a dime 50 years and costs a dollar today but people earn 10 times more, does it really make any difference? What you need to look at is over all income levels and standard of living.

There's certainly been a shift in income disparity in recent decades, but that's a separate issue. Over all, I don't think you can say that we were 7 or 8 times better off in the 60's than we are now, even though the dollar was in some general sense "worth more."

All at the same time? I don't think so? But if that happened, how much food and water is enough?

The Hunt brothers attempt to corner the silver market ultimately ended with failure. And as far as the X_Ray film market, even though the Hunt brothers had an effect, today, I think it would no no longer be a factor since technology has progressed and digital has overtaken this market also.
Cheers

Because, of course, ammunition solves all the economic problems of the world, as evidenced in the countries of Syria, Iraq, Belgian Congo, Yemen, Mexico, Kenya, Gaza, Libya, Sudan and the newest country in the world, South Sudan.