If you're an individual investor, given the choice between the 2 scenarios, would you rather exist in a world with 2% deflation, where you have to make more than a 2% return on investment in order for it to have been worthwhile, or a world with 2% inflation, where you don't even need to correctly pick a growing investment, and even an investment that just holds a stable value is worthwhile.

The choice is obvious, of course the individual would rather have the deflation scenario, because then they don't even need to invest or take any risk to grow their wealth. They can literally just sit around and do nothing, and their wealth grows for free without any risk.

But this is naive and childish to think that an environment where you just get free wealth for no reason by doing nothing is healthy for an economy as a whole.

Argentina had very high inflation, and I agree that's bad. The amount of inflation is key. What dictates the amount of inflation that is healthy? Hint: you'll have to scroll all the way to the beginning of this lesson in order to know. (jk I'll just tell you here, it relates to the growth rate of the economy). Argentina's inflation was out of sync with its economic growth.

Technically, deflation isn't always theoretically bad and inflation isn't always theoretically good, but we live in a reality of moderate economic growth, so therefore moderate inflation is required to maintain it.

And now we've circled back to the start and my position has remained entirely self-consistent, while yours has been easy to poke full of holes and point out the inconsistencies.