Referencing the advancement of technology is doubly tone deaf, as tech points out the fundamental problem with the artificial inflation aspect of their mandate. If you had $3000 in the 1990's, you could buy a 33MHz 486 with a 14" CRT. Or you could have buried the money as cash under a rock, dug it out in 2024, and bought a desktop, laptop, tablet, and phone that each dwarfed the capabilities of the 486. Yet you would have been utterly stupid do the latter, considering all you would have missed out on. Technology is the glaring example that shows today's consumption does not depend on the threat of prices being higher tomorrow.

But sure, if one still wants to toe the party line that artificial inflation is necessary, that still doesn't justify all of the resulting newly created money having been given to the financial sector as low interest loans just to bid up an asset bubble and create a bunch of make-work white collar jobs shuffling the paperwork. That money could have instead been spent for deliberate purposes, like infrastructure and mitigating the societal damage from offshoring (yet another thing that would have caused natural deflation had it been allowed). But all that wealth was basically looted under the auspices of "fiscal responsibility", leaving Wall Street incredibly rich (and bloated), while continually turning the financial screws on Main Street.