[creshal]

> That would still make currencies far more stable than modern currencies.

Stability is not inherently good. Stable currencies that suffocate the economy because they do not allow for rapid enough expansion or reduction of the money supply are a burden. Another example would be the interwar years and great depression, were virtually all countries suspended the gold standard because it was simply impossible to uphold, and the economy recovered from it.

[PepeGomez]

When the economy expands, things get cheaper. Like with most electronics in the last five decades or so.

[creshal]

Deflation is a lot more complicated than that, unfortunately.

[PepeGomez]

No, it isn't.

[creshal]

Okay, so you have products that get cheaper and cheaper. Is that good? No, the computer industry is in a deep crisis because of that – first PC sales tanked, then laptop sales, then netbook sales, then ultrabook sales, then tablet sales, soon smartphone sales… if products get cheaper and cheaper, you have no incentive to buy more than absolutely necessary, because not waiting with your purchase will always lose you money.

And then we have the other problems: What about rents? Debts? Wages? Do you decrease them over time, too? What happens if they aren't? Who would lend money under such circumstances, if just keeping the money under your pillow will make you richer anyway, and at zero risk, too?

Etc. pp.

[PepeGomez]

>No, the computer industry is in a deep crisis because of that – first PC sales tanked, then laptop sales, then netbook sales, then ultrabook sales, then tablet sales, soon smartphone sales… if products get cheaper and cheaper, you have no incentive to buy more than absolutely necessary, because not waiting with your purchase will always lose you money.

Yes, because that's absolutely what happened. What actually happened is that there is no longet any reason to buy the top end, because the low end is enough for most people.

>And then we have the other problems: What about rents? Debts? Wages? Do you decrease them over time, too?

Why should wages decrease?

>What happens if they aren't?

People have more money to spend and the additional demand further boosts the economy.

>Who would lend money under such circumstances, if just keeping the money under your pillow will make you richer anyway, and at zero risk, too?

People would definitely go back to saving and away from making debts. That is not a problem, the need to invest money when there is no objective reason to do so is what leads to investment bubbles and excessive debts.

[creshal]

> Yes, because that's absolutely what happened.

Sales are down down. Total sales. Not "high end sales". All sales.

> Why should wages decrease?

The economy is growing. The population is growing. Everything is growing… except your money supply. You have to make products cheaper with fixed wages, your personnel costs will explode, until it's no longer affordable to pay the current rates.

Same with rents: Building housing will become progressively cheaper. Rents, land taxes, etc. will have to go down to match these prices, or nobody will be able to afford living in existing housing any more.

> People would definitely go back to saving and away from making debts.

You seem to conflate a lot of issues here. We had inflation with gold standards (because you can debase your currency anyway). We had crashes and bubbles with gold standards (and pre-gold-standard gold based currencies, which you conflate too…). The destruction of the middle class and impoverishment of the lower classes aren't a result of fiat currencies.

> That is not a problem, the need to invest money when there is no objective reason to do so is what leads to investment bubbles and excessive debts.

Except that deflation will result in a shortage of investment even where there is objective need.