Quote from: HugoStone on November 15, 2016, 04:45:17 PM

Both terms are equally meaningless when money is reduced to an intrinsically valueless digital abstraction. Some might take issue with the phrase "intrinsically valueless", but even the Bitcoin wiki (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Bitcoins_have_no_intrinsic_value_.28unlike_some_other_things.29 jumps through hoops in an attempt to explain why bitcoin are intrinsically valuable, before finally acknowledging that 'value' is just an illusion created by supply and demand. Inflation and deflation have meaning only if you pull the wool over your eyes and force yourself to believe that something that really is intrinsically valueless actually has value.

Imagine for a moment that we wake up tomorrow and decide to: a) reject the myth of intrinsic value; b) recognise that there is no need to create digital abstractions of money as debt; c) acknowledge that there is nothing scarce about digital abstractions of money and no reason to set a cap on the number that can be created; d) allowed everyone to create their own digital abstractions of money on demand at the point of need.

What would 'inflation' or 'deflation' amount to under such a system? It would look like what it is: an illusion that keeps us focused on the numbers and worrying about an illusory reduction in our 'spending power', rather than the real-world problems those numbers represent. Supply and demand may generate an increase in the price of a commodity, but under a system that permits everyone to create digital abstractions of money on demand this would mean nothing whatsoever. It would only mean that everyone has an equal opportunity to get their hands on that commodity, whereas at the moment this right is reserved for those who possess enough fiat currency, a.k.a. other people's debt. The real issue here is not the illusory numbers game but whether there is sufficient supply to meet demand. The existing system 'solves' this problem by pricing people out of the market, rather than genuinely addressing the lack of supply that generated the price inflation in the first place

I don't quite understand what you mean to say

It looks like that your point hinges on the assumption that "digital abstraction", the term which you seem to use to describe both fiat currencies and Bitcoin, has no intrinsic value. If that is being the case, I can only say that you are pretty much wrong on this. Money, even in the form of "digital abstraction" as you call it, does have intrinsic value. Just in case, it is called transactional utility which is an inherent quality of money, i.e. something without which money can't exist