No, it's not. Not all goods become cheaper over time, productivity gains do not magically make everything cheaper, only some items. Economic growth is not purely based on making stuff cheaper or more efficiently, it is also based on increased economic activity. With a fixed supply currency a hoarder gets richer in the absolute, not just where efficiency gains are made on particular products, they become richer directly because other people are working harder. This is not the case in the situation you seek to describe.
Right. There are plenty of situations where a saver becomes richer, one of them is if an employer can make his employees work the same for less.
But you still haven't answered my question: why is the money producer - who makes sure we have inflation - a more deserving recipient of the increase in wealth from increased productivity than the money saver?
>> Right. There are plenty of situations where a saver becomes richer, one of them is if an employer can make his employees work the same for less.
That's certain goods getting cheaper, not an appreciating hold over the economy in general that a deflating currency represents.
>> But you still haven't answered my question: why is the money producer - who makes sure we have inflation - a more deserving recipient of the increase in wealth from increased productivity than the money saver?
Deserve? That sounds awfully like a moral judgement...
But I don't think you'll find I said that either one deserves it. I said that I'm not going to, by choice, buy into an economy where my effort enriches currency-squatters. That's not my idea of fun. A currency that inflates roughly in line with economic expansion is more pragmatic.
And frankly, if it goes to the money-printers, well that's the government and in theory they get to use it to build useful stuff we all use. I have no issue with reasonable taxes.
