Argument 1:
Deflation helps everyone. The world isn't a zero sum game. If a miracle happens and we manage to use nuclear fusion (fusion, not fission) and everyone can enjoy pretty much free electricity, how are the rich hurting the poor? They aren't. In this case, the improved material well-being of the rich does not come from the abuse of the poor in any way.

Argument 2:
If inflation helped the poor, Venezuela, Argentina and Turkey would be a paradise for common folk. It doesn't seem to be the case, does it?

About those comments on inflation.

Rich people have resources to store their wealth there where inflation can't take it (stocks, real state, getting close to the money printer). Rich people also have better access to credit, and remember: in the fiat world, the one who is better off is the one who can more easily and cheaply get in debt. It's the upside-down world.

On the other hand, poor people mostly have cash, because they are on tight cash flows and can't afford the friction and risks that comes with turning cash into other assets. If you only have a 100$ in your account, you won't be buying skyscrapers nor stocks with that.

Actually, you could argue that inflation is what keeps many poor people poor. I can tell you that the most hard-working guy in Niger is not going to get out of poverty any day soon as long as he lives under an extremely inflationary currency + capital controls + a complete disconnection from the traditional finance system. If he lived in a deflationary world, at least he could benefit of the cost of living decreases, regardless of his capital being small.

Rich people don’t hold their wealth in cash, but rather, scarce/productive assets

Because… inflation.

I think this holds true in a world where money is the only commodity/ asset available to own and that commodity is concentrated in the hands of a few.

However, in reality, wealthier people have the ability to protect their wealth against inflation because they can shift cash reserves into stocks, real estate, and other scarce assets. Transferring wealth to these assets can require exclusive access to buy stocks ( qualify and opening a brokerage acct) or large capital entry points such as a down payment for real estate. So the 70ish% of americans ( as an example) who own no assets and just hold cash savings get the most rekd as they cannot transfer out in order to protect what little savings they have. The result is that the wealthy or privileged persons able to shift wealth to property that is scarce will be the least affected by inflation

That is where bitcoin may break this cycle as the low barriers to purchase make it obtainable to almost anyone, anywhere, giving everyone access to scarce property that can protect wealth from currency inflation.

что б потратить сат нужно иметь комиссиию.! это первое...
если буду тратить 1% значит когда то придет конец... и это обязательно будет.
при росте по экспоненте нет возможности угодать когда биткоин стабилизирует свою цену. значит очень богатые заберут 100-200% прибыли и выйдут это будет замечательно!
но что им делать если биткоин не сможет падать? а будет только рости? опять покупать и сновы выходить при 100-200% прибыли а это замкнутый цикл роста оприори. скорость принятия станет настолько резкой что не хватит времени одуматься... просто к сведенью.

The whole premise of this is wrong. It doesn't need refuting.

Bitcoin is not deflationary. The bitcoin supply is inflationary until the year 2140......just not at the rate you are used to.

Also a person has to be spend some portion of their income for cost of living, no matter the currency in use. So "poor people need to spend a higher percentage of their income simply to survive" is true of bitcoin, dollars, zlotys, or anything else.

What is unique about bitcoin for those with a smaller asset base is it levels the playing field with those with larger assets. If they simply make a switch to bitcoin now, in these early days, they can accrue real savings from their surplus into the future, rather than that surplus being rapidly destroyed by inflation.

In other words, it gives everybody an asset that is fiat inflation resistant, rather than now, where only richer, connected people have access to those types of inflation resistant assets.

Bitcoin Audible: Guy's Take #58 - "Rent-Seeking Savers!" Misconceptions in Noahpinion's Crypto Misconceptions

I say because the differences between % of income for cost (not however much you want to spend) of living become less in a deflationary environment.

ChatGPT?

"There are several points that could be made to refute the claim that a deflationary currency disproportionately benefits the rich while an inflationary currency disproportionately affects the rich:

1. While it is true that the cost of living may be lower in a deflationary environment, this does not necessarily translate into a higher rate of wealth accumulation for the rich. In fact, deflation can be harmful to the economy as a whole, leading to lower levels of economic activity and reduced wealth for all individuals, including the rich.
2. The idea that the rich are more affected by inflation is not necessarily true. While it is true that the rich may have more wealth to inflate, they also have more resources and flexibility to protect their wealth and adjust to changes in the economic environment. For example, the rich may be able to invest in assets that are less affected by inflation, such as real estate or gold, or they may be able to hedge their investments through the use of financial instruments.
3. It is not necessarily the case that an inflationary currency disproportionately affects the poor. In fact, in some cases, an increase in the money supply can lead to increased economic activity and higher levels of employment, which can benefit those with lower incomes.
4. The relationship between wealth and inflation is complex and depends on a variety of factors. It is not accurate to make a blanket statement about the effects of deflation or inflation on the rich or the poor without considering the specific context in which these phenomena occur."

in an inflationary environment, the rich people are at least more affected by the inflation, because they have more to inflate.

The reality of inflation in recent decades is that asset prices inflated while worker incomes did not, this created substantial inequality via e.g. housing prices and rents. Even worse is when food and energy prices also inflate (like recently), while worker incomes do not. A rich person spends sub 1% of wealth on food and energy, a very poor person, more like 50-80% (and the rest on the aforementioned shelter costs).

These real world examples illustrate what I think is the key point: it's not about inflation or deflation as a global measure, it's more about how the price changes are distributed over different things.

If wages kept up with asset inflation over the last 50 years, you wouldn't have seen a drastic increase in inequality.

That's still better than an Inflationary system where instead everyone's bags grow at the same rate. People print money at the expense of everyone else, and right now Bitcoin is also inflationary and there is always pressure on the price from miners selling. That's how it is with fiat except instead of mining they just print as much as they want for the elites.

Rewarding overconsumption hasn't really worked out too great. Let's give rewarding savers a try for a while. If that means the rich and thrifty benefit more than the poor and wasteful, so be it.

I like @pillar's arguments, but my question is this: why is it wrong that the rich get richer faster than poor?

The reason most people are poor is because they are sooo concerned with how rich other people are and this concern the rich exploit and use against the poor to implement things such as socialism and fiat currency which keeps the poor, poor. But my point is why do you care how fast or slow other people get rich. Whats important is how fast YOU can get rich. And if the money you are saving up loses value over time BY DESIGN then you will not be able to get rich as quick

Maybe I'm mistaken, but this argument sounds right.

Let's be intellectually honest and admit the shortcomings of the deflationary paradigm at the same level we highlight the ones for an inflationary one. It's never black or white, it's about picking the grey that shines best.

This is a reason why I like Grin. A constant emission rate of 1 grin per second forever.

However, even with a constant emission, there is a “soft cap” that is reached when inflation is less that 1%. For Grin, it takes 100 more years to get to that point I think. So at that point, I’m not sure if soft supply cap is a ton different than hard supply cap.