Good answer. Inflation is just a euphemism for stealing from working people.
It truly kills all dignity of labor.
In an inflationary currency, the rich invest in assets that aren't affected by inflation. Inflation is not the problem in this scenario. Hoarding wealth is. This would be increased with a deflationary currency.
It's just logical inference. Your point of view shallowly considers everyone as consumers without thinking about the fact that if "things get cheaper", that means that labour has also gotten cheaper. You assert that people won't "sit there" while employers reduce their wages, but that's exactly what would HAVE to happen in this system. Otherwise the company would go under because their product or service gets cheaper each year, but labour stays the same or increases in cost. Especially under capitalism which demands constant growth.
It simply would not make sense to pay someone the same price for a bushel of wheat when the cost of bread has reduced to a fraction of its original price. I don't know why you say that it is propaganda to acknowledge this extremely simple logical inference.
We've made massive increases in production efficiency across the board over the years, but the banks and government have creamed off all those efficiency gains for themselves, by printing money, creating the illusion that everything is instead going up in value, and have made themselves mind-blowingly powerful.
As the world economies are so broken, if the money supply went down instead of up (i.e. deflationary supply), the real value of the already enormous debts would increase even if the nominal value didn't, causing the economies to collapse suddenly. By keeping the money supply increasing, the economies are collapsing slowly instead, ultimately ending in hyperinflation.
The value of anything simply derives from the quantity and quality (demand/supply) of the human work that goes into producing it.
In the current inflationary system, people are working for something that the banking system produces for almost nothing i.e. in the eyes of the banks/government, they are working for almost free.
It would never reach zero, it would keep approaching zero though (relative to the amount of money of people who earnt it before you).
Basically, someone could just hoard the cash they have at 0% risk and still get richer than you over time even if you manage to save 100% of your salary. How is that a reasonable system that encourages growth in productivity?
Of course we have bonds but when real interest rates are close to zero than doesn't work that well like in a deflationary system e.g. throughout much of the 1800s yields were 4-5% and deflation was basically the standard outside of major wars since the economy was growing faster than the supply of money was, so basically you could just not do anything productive with your wealth and still do fine, that's basically how British aristocrats from all the novels (and similar parasitical classes) sustained their lifestyles while not providing anything useful in return to the working classes whose taxes and severely depressed incomes made this whole thing possible).
Was equal to about 26 kilograms. For most labourers that was about 10 years worth of wages...
> We've made massive increases in production efficiency
Likely much if not most of that wouldn't have happened if monetary supply was constrained and there would have been a lot less investment.
> the real value of the already enormous debts would increase even if the nominal value didn't
Why would you even want that to happen? I mean that was a pretty common situation in the 19th century and generally and it was pretty horrible. Imagine if you were a farmer who had a mortgage and the price of the goods you were selling kept going down every year... OTH other hand you could just buy government bonds and spend your days not doing anything useful (e.g. if you were an English aristocrat on a fixed income).
> By keeping the money supply increasing, the economies are collapsing slowly instead
Except they are not collapsing. What we have now is generally a huge improvement over the permanent boom and bust cycles that kept happening until the 1930s in large part because the money supply was constrained and increased at a slower pace than the economy was growing.
> ultimately ending in hyperinflation.
What are you basing this prediction on?