No. Deflation slaughters the wealthy in the markets. No need for the uprising.

It’s great for anybody that can provide a useful service for cash. Especially farmers. Farmers suffered all through the 1920s because they mortgaged their land during WW1 to massively increase supply, and then the demand disappeared. The problem, they said was not starving people, but that food was too cheap! So the big indebted farms banded together to stop food shipments from family farms, and the government responded by giving the big farms a handout.

So no, deflation doesn’t mean starving people. I talked to a bunch of old people about this. Work was rare, but you only needed a few unskilled labor hours a week to pay for food and housing, and that was always available. They said life was pretty good if you didn’t have a mortgage.

But really we’re talking about lack of inflation here. Not deflation. Deflation only and necessarily must occur with inflation preceding it.

> Because deflation means less jobs

Source?

Deflation incentivizes delaying purchases. Less purchases means less revenue. Less revenue means smaller budgets for employed staff.

That's your opinion - I don't see any source. My opinion is that it doesn't cause less jobs - I think it would eventually cause more sustainable jobs as malinvestment is removed from the economy.

Just look at any random crypto forum. You can see an endless number of threads about people who made millions and stopped working and they are proud about that. Just think about Bitcoin. If you bought Bitcoin in 2013 and held onto them you would be rich today. If you spent them on pizza you would hate yourself.

Deflationary crises were common before the invention of the central bank and fiat currencies. Instead of believing go read some history.

The historical incidents of deflation are insignificant and very few. The incidents of hyperinflation are common, and incidents of high inflation are guaranteed with fiat currencies with very few exceptions.