" "Deflation" just means that your money is worth more as time goes by because the economy grows in productivity. This only happens if the growth is actually taking place - and growth does not happen forever in a finite universe, and certainly not on a finite planet. Anyone arguing against deflation is simply arguing for the State's right to reach into every pocket at the same time by printing money. This is a great deal if your pockets are empty and the some portion of the proceeds from the theft might land in them. Otherwise it plain old sucks. Proponents of government-issued fiat currency: be honest and call inflation a tax. But don't lie and paint non-rotting money as some kind of Medieval torment which the Enlightenment graciously set us free from. " via, http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/10/analysis_of_how.html#c927907

Economics is an open field and and ongoing debate. You go to a school and they only teach you to use microsoft tools or whatever tech companies have been financially supporting them with their generous 'free' licenses. So guess what type of economics the state run schools are going to teach you.. Deflation - good for you, bad for the state. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6E1k2YO9qU Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

In almost all forms of investment, early adopters profit from the rise in value. I dont see why this is any different.

The argument is basically that hoarding will make Bitcoins so valuable that nobody will be willing to offer people enough to part with them. Does that pass the giggle test? Another way of stating the argument is this, "If gold is $2,000/oz today but people think it will be $5,000/oz next year, nobody will trade any gold today." Again, think about it. Does that pass the giggle test either? http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/408/does-hoarding-really-hurt-bitcoin