Examples of strawmen arguments include mischaracterizing the argument, Deflation in Bitcoin isn't bad because deflation is inherently good" as "Deflation in Bitcoin isn't bad because of some special characteristic of Bitcoin."
That's a different kind of argument, and not what I was talking about. Asserting that deflation in currency is inherently good is a general assertion, and it's something that can be debated on its own evidence. We can look at how deflation has affected currencies in the past. What I was saying was that IF we look at how deflation affects currencies in the past, and IF deflation appears to negatively affect the economy that uses those currencies, one can't just dismiss the argument by saying "those examples don't apply to Bitcoins because bitcoins are different."
Yep, deflation, it's presence during certain times, and it's implications is a unique argument with merit. It is not a diversion.
There was a US Congressman sponsored money seminar in DC where historians asserted that US deflationary periods had nothing to do with...guess what....deflation.
But, if one were to ask the typical academia economist they would mark history as being riddled with deflationary events due to poor money supply management.
It's highly debatable.
That's very interesting. I'd never heard that before.
I can certainly see the argument that deflation is good for a currency as having merit. I'm not sure I agree with it... but I don't think I know enough to be certain one way or another. We'll probably be able to find out soon because of Bitcoins.
What bothers me is when people lay out an argument for why they think deflation is bad, using history and macroeconomics, and people dismiss the argument because "Deflation will affect Bitcoins differently" or "These charts are meaningless because Hayek something something". Arguing that it only appears to be deflation causing bad things, or that the role of deflation is misunderstood, I think is a much better argument.