If the real costs is decreasing that's usually good, a decrease in nominal prices not so much. Why would you invest into increasing productivity etc. if you know that you revenue will only go down Longterm? Generally we'd want to quality to increase while prices stay more or less the same to encourage innovation.
> We've made massive increases in production efficiency
Likely much if not most of that wouldn't have happened if monetary supply was constrained and there would have been a lot less investment.
> the real value of the already enormous debts would increase even if the nominal value didn't
Why would you even want that to happen? I mean that was a pretty common situation in the 19th century and generally and it was pretty horrible. Imagine if you were a farmer who had a mortgage and the price of the goods you were selling kept going down every year... OTH other hand you could just buy government bonds and spend your days not doing anything useful (e.g. if you were an English aristocrat on a fixed income).
> By keeping the money supply increasing, the economies are collapsing slowly instead
Except they are not collapsing. What we have now is generally a huge improvement over the permanent boom and bust cycles that kept happening until the 1930s in large part because the money supply was constrained and increased at a slower pace than the economy was growing.
> We've made massive increases in production efficiency
Likely much if not most of that wouldn't have happened if monetary supply was constrained and there would have been a lot less investment.
> the real value of the already enormous debts would increase even if the nominal value didn't
Why would you even want that to happen? I mean that was a pretty common situation in the 19th century and generally and it was pretty horrible. Imagine if you were a farmer who had a mortgage and the price of the goods you were selling kept going down every year... OTH other hand you could just buy government bonds and spend your days not doing anything useful (e.g. if you were an English aristocrat on a fixed income).
> By keeping the money supply increasing, the economies are collapsing slowly instead
Except they are not collapsing. What we have now is generally a huge improvement over the permanent boom and bust cycles that kept happening until the 1930s in large part because the money supply was constrained and increased at a slower pace than the economy was growing.
> ultimately ending in hyperinflation.
What are you basing this prediction on?