HEALTHY markets are zero or negative inflation. Take computer-related equipment: every year, you get more bang for the buck (even when you consider they're inflated bucks). That's called deflation.
No, no, no. You cannot parcel up "deflation" and "inflation" on a per-market basis, then use that to determine the strength or weakness of a currency.
A deflationary currency is a bad thing; you simply have to remember that an economy thrives on people buying things from each other, and breaks down when they stop doing so. It's a bit more complicated, obviously, but primarily you need to be concerned when people have an incentive not to do so.
Deflation causes a breakdown in this in that it becomes acceptable to get "returns" (i.e. increase in worth) for a currency by simple stuffing it in a mattress. This is very harmful, not least because it's a positive feedback loop; the more people stuffing currency in their mattresses, the smaller the money supply, and the faster the currency deflates. See the Great Depression for an example.
For nearly 300 years, inflation was essentially zero in North America, and we had a healthy economy (arguably the healthiest in the world).
If by "essentially zero" you mean "inflation and deflation of double-digits year over year", I suppose that's half-true. It doesn't make for a stable economy, though. And just for kicks, you should look for all of the "Panics" that happened in 19th century America, you might be surprised at the number and their severity.
We need to end the Fed, and re-instate a hard money standard. Just those two things would fix many of our ills.
This is very, very much not the case. Why do you think the "Great Moderation" happened? Why do you think that not a single nation in the world is using a "hard money" standard anymore?
