Most of the responses in this thread seem to boil down to "that's how it was from the start, so that's how it should be". I'm keen to understand why it was like this from the start. Did Satoshi (and other developers) not consider the impacts of lost coins and population growth? Did they feel that we should incentivise saving more than investment? Did they feel that the fixed 21m approach doesn't in fact incentivise saving more than investment? Has there been any meaningful discussion by the developers about the implications of the various options apart from "this is just the way it is"?
Someone said: "Although the supply of Bitcoin is constant, the population is growing. As more and more people start to join the buying ranks, the rigid money supply will lead to deflationary pressure."
This is the wrong idea of not understanding the status quo. With the continuous improvement of the level of social and economic development and the level of education, the aging of the population will become more and more serious, which is caused by the decline in population growth. At present, some regions, especially developed countries, have seen negative population growth. In fact, our second-child policy was proposed in response to the slowdown in population growth. With the increase in the degree of industrialization in areas with the highest level of population growth (poor or underdeveloped), this downward pressure will continue.