you're technically correct, yes it isn't exactly the same. good job! for an example that is exactly the same, look at the general monetary deflation in the united states during the majority of the 19th century. I know most people won't, so I used a similar example that everyone is familiar with.

Their argument isn't that it's not "exactly the same" (they were being polite), it's that it's functionally the opposite. And when you imagine a variation in which it's functionally the same, your argument clearly falls apart.

As far as deflation in the 1800s, are you referring to in 1818 after a credit collapse cratered England's economy and then spread to the US and put it into a recession; or maybe the Panic of 1837 which triggered a depression until the mid 1840s?; or do you mean the Panic of 1873 which triggered the Long Depression that lasted until 1899?

Which one of those are good examples we should look to?

it isn't the opposite, it is the same. many people are confused about money though, so understandable that you had trouble relating them.

how could panics be what I'm talking about? we are talking about price levels, or I'm trying to at least.

The glorious periods of deflation that you're glamorizing are referred to in the historical record as panics and depressions. Because they were very unenjoyable.

It's of course not that bankers put this spin on it to give them an excuse to continuously print money (all the money in fact) out of thin air and charge interest on it.

Remind me, why is the target inflation rate 2-3% again? It couldn't be that it's the amount of money creation they can get away with without devaluing the currency so much that it destabilises into hyperinflation could it?

I'm just having fun - I'm sure I'm completely wrong

> Remind me, why is the target inflation rate 2-3% again?

Because empirically it seems to yield a pretty sustainable mixture of consumption, investment, and savings, while also not risking a wage-price spiral.

You tell me what the target inflation rate should be and point to some moments in history informing that target so I can go read about them.

It should be a negative, just as the value of consumables are over time. But that's not possible in a system heavily indebted and addicted to interest rates under the free market rate (only possible because banks create money effortlessly and hold it artificially low to enable a monopoly on "debt"). Such a policy would quickly collapse the current system as the value of the debt would increase over time instead of decrease, and so instead the banks inflate the value of the currency down to 0 which takes more time for the system to collapse (which fiat currencies always do and always will).

Starting again with a hard money, we would thrive, instead of being enslaved by a system that continuously stealthily, steals the value out of the fruits of our labour (at a rate of ~7% year) and gives it to the bankers and those closest to them.