There is no such evidence. There are those who benefit from inflation (and only if it's predictable for them) but the majority of people don't. Unless you define economy as something only the wealthy can benefit from - no, inflation is not good.

In contrast, the rich are much more likely to have bonds or cash holdings. They are the ones for whom inflation is a real problem. Why else would all this political pressure for a 2% inflation target exist? It's because that's low enough for the rich, not because it's high.

Printing money and redistributing it would severely impact capital holders, like it did in the post WWII boom which created the middle class.

Here is an entire book on this topic :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_...

The wealth redistribution post-WW2 had more to do with the war itself than inflation though.

So back to the 21st century: what makes you think that those who have excess capital don't invest wisely? Compare that to lack of any excess capital for the majority.

One quite essential feature of a clearinghouse is the ability to correct the books in case of operational errors, in response to court orders etc.

People lose their passwords, get scammed, go bankrupt, die and leave their possessions to their next of kin... It's very hard to achieve the desired/expected outcome for any of these situations on a blockchain.

Cash doesn't have a built-in paper trail and dispute resolution mechanism, all of which are highly desirable when doing business with unknown/not yet trustworthy entities.

In many (definitely not all!) cases, transaction finality is a bug, not a feature.

And the one time I had a dispute, Visa claimed that the transaction was out of policy somehow (timeframe, region, etc)

So no, that better alternative doesn’t favor the customer

In the case of card payments, merchants incur a fee for every transaction reversed through the card scheme, whereas voluntary refunds are essentially free. They are accordingly incentivized to understand and follow the scheme rules.

> And the one time I had a dispute, Visa claimed that the transaction was out of policy somehow (timeframe, region, etc)

That's unfortunate, and mistakes or seemingly unfair decisions do happen – just like in a public legal system. But you are essentially basing your opinion on a sample size of one.

Practically, some banks just seem to be better (i.e. more consumer friendly) at dispute resolution than others. As an example, in the case of a high profile airline bankruptcy in my country, some banks have proactively reached out to their customers, letting them know they're happy to pursue disputes for them, while others were declining them outright due to a – likely wrong – understanding of scheme rules and bankruptcy law.

Governments can arbitrarily censor legal payments at will, without legal cause.