[scriptman]

>Those are two absolutely different things. One stems from production, transportation, and financial improvements across the board, the other comes because fewer people want to buy anything.

That's true, but they are measured the same way: through the nominal value of goods and services. The people that the economists are worried about, consumers, only have the price of goods to guide them, they have no information as to whether the falling price is due to improvements in efficiency or lack of demand.

>It's not so much about consumers delaying spending. It's what happens further up the chain. If the holders of wealth that seed the economy figure out that it's better for them to hold on to their >assets rather than invest them, then people lose jobs. We need them to keep investing their money.

I'm not sure I've read this as being the main driver of the theory previously. To me, it doesn't really make sense since theories concerning deflation don't make any predictions concerning the return on investment. If deflation is uniform, then the return should stay the same since the cost of inputs should fall as well. If deflation isn't uniform, then you'd see changes in the allocation of resources as some industries make large profits due to falling input costs, while other industries might go bust due to their input costs staying the same even while their sell prices fall.

Personally, I think that that productivity growth is far more important than deflation and will compensate for any short term negative effects that deflation might or might not bring.