Fiat economists often make arguments that only make sense if you ignore certain elements of the bigger picture. Example: the (flawed) argument that new technologies, like the cotton gin, are net bad for society bc they cause unemployment. This argument is flawed bc it ignores the fact that in the long run people shift to new jobs. If this were not the case, we would have observed unemployment rise every time new technology is introduced into society over the course of human history. Which means that after thousands of years of innovation, we should be at 99.99% unemployment by now, lol. Obviously this didn’t happen. The inflation-is-inherently-good and deflation-is-inherently-bad arguments are similarly flawed. Yes, people will be less likely to buy frivolous stuff and more likely to save. Yes, that means some people who produce frivolous goods and services will lose their jobs. But no, that does not mean the unemployment rate will go up and stay up forever. Just like the situation with the cotton gin, the economy will adjust by shifting employment into more productive endeavors. Think of it this way: under steady state conditions, inflation acts like a force to shift economic activity towards less productive endeavors. Deflation, on the other hand, shifts economic activity towards more productive endeavors. Which is better for society? Obviously the latter.