> I wonder who you saw debating that. It looks really settled down and unanimous to me. Inflation is extremely harmful to poor people.

The debate is about the alternatives / counter-factuals: would <0% inflation (read: deflation) be better or worse for poor people than >>0% inflation? How do those two compare to ~0% (e.g., 2%, the Fed target) inflation?

There's a reason why I linked to articles on the topic of the 'cross of gold' and austerity. We've had other ways of doing things in the past and are on the current system for a reason.

A lot of folks seem to want to get rid of the Fed, get back to gold, mercantilism (which is basically what Trump's tariffs are attempting), and generally go back to the 1800s way of doing money/finance:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression

Try reading Project 2025's chapter on the Federal Reserve:

> Free Banking. In free banking, neither interest rates nor the supply of money is controlled by the government. The Federal Reserve is effectively abolished, and the Department of the Treasury largely limits itself to handling the government’s money. Regions of the U.S. actually had a similar system, known as the “Suffolk System,” from 1824 until the 1850s, and it minimized both inflation and economic disruption while allowing lending to flourish.[23]

[…]

> As in the Suffolk System, competition keeps banks from overprinting or lending irresponsibly. This is because any bank that issues more paper than it has assets available would be subject to competitor banks’ presenting its notes for redemption. In the extreme, an overissuing bank could be liable to a bank run.[!] Reckless banks’ competitors have good incentives to police risk closely lest their own holdings of competitor dollars become worthless.[24]

* https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHA...*

Yay! Bank runs!