This sounds like an interesting insight. Could you elaborate?

Compare the difference between 1000 and 2000, vs 4000 and 8000. In both cases it's double, but in the second case the difference appears to be 4 times as large.

This graph is linear, so it makes it look like the jump from 4000 to 8000 is more significant than the jump from 1000 to 2000, but actually it's not. It's identical.

How is it identical? One has a difference of 1000 the other of 4000. We all know that $4000 is much more than $1000.

The only thing they have in common is that both amounts have doubled, but I think there is a huge difference between 1000 to 2000 with 1 million to 2 million although they both have only doubled.

No, actually. With money the only thing that matters is the degree of change, not the simple number.

The change from 1 million to 2 million is much more important than the change from 99 million to 100 million.

Try an experiment: take a calculator or a spreadsheet. In one case start with 1000 then keep doubling it. In the other start with 1 million and keep adding 1 million.

I think the idea is simply that, since inflation is a compounding process, given a constant rate of inflation prices will form an exponential graph.

A log scale would let you see more detail in the 90s, but in this case I think I actually prefer the linear, 0-anchored version.