thats a fallacy. nothing prevents you from exchanging more even if you had a fixed number of coupons. you would just have to consider that the value of each coupon becomes more, not less, over time, so you need to use subdivisions of coupons more.
Inflation, even at low levels, is ultimately value destruction over time.
Deflation has historically been a bad thing every time it's happened.
Instead, our savings are buying us LESS over time, so that government can buy votes, fund wars, bail out defense contractors, pharma companies, financial institutions, and other cronies, etc. Inflation via the printing press, which is now just considered by many a normal phenomenon, is actually legalized wealth transfer from the savings of ordinary citizens into the coffers of giant government bureaucracies and the large corporations that feed off them.
Having said that, deflation isn't always the awful spectre of doom it's sometimes made out do be, especially if it's due to technological improvements or increased supply. As the article we're all notionally discussing explains, inflation in a reasonably well managed economy is generally differential and reflects shifts in the structure of the economy.
Who should be the ultimate judge of how capital is saved and invested? You? The government? What about the person who actually did the saving?
Taken to it's logical conclusion, saying that "devaluing in-the-mattress savings is a good thing" sounds a lot like "let's soak the rich" to me.... and it's a very slippery road to serfdom.
you say "I don’t want to devalue their savings" yet above you say
"Devaluing in-the-mattress savings is a good thing".
Either your thinking has changed or, you're trying to cause confusion or, maybe confused yourself, or are trolling. At this point I suspect I may even be chatting with an ELIZA... so what else is there for me to say? Think whatever you want.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If the supply of money goes up relative to demand then we call that inflation.
It seems like you are conflating the two categories.
That I can think of, the obvious difference is that the second one almost definitionally means a steady decrease in nominal wages. This seems like a perverse incentive - if I sock away my first paycheck flipping burgers under my mattress and do nothing with it for 50 years, a deflationary regime means I can take it back out and buy a lot more with it than someone with their first paycheck flipping burgers today.
People said similar stuff about negative interest rates, yet they were rolled out and kind of worked around the world. I'm not buying this defense of inflationism.
Thats still true with inflation too. No idea what your point is.
