All of your points are very well refuted in my previous posts. I won't do the reading of my post for you. You're supposed to be an adult with adequate critical thinking skills and I expect you to understand how the points in your post which I have clearly referred to relate to the points in my post. If you can't do that then that's fine, but don't pretend that your points weren't discussed in a clear enough way for you to comprehend. It's all right there. I'll even give you an example.

The borrower is paying on principal that is essentially worth much less, but the bank is able to make the loan because they get their money at the beginning when it's still worth a lot.

What? The bank loses control of the money that's valuable in the beginning, and the reason they would go through with that is the expectation of a return on that investment in the future. But as a currency loses ts value, so does the ROI. You're saying that's good for the bank?

The bank does not lose money in the housing deal by lending out money due to what is called amortization and interest. If a bank lends you 100,000 and you buy a house, the bank has to charge interest to make a profit. This profit will lose value due to inflation, but not in the same amount that the interest will accrue. They also head the inflation off at the pass by taking most of your mortgage payment and applying it not to the principal of the loan, but instead to the interest that the loan has accrued thus far and interest the loan will ever accrue. EVEN MORE SO, most banks that originate the loan sell off your mortgage immediately to someone for a guaranteed amount and stop worrying about the interest ever. I lend you 100,000. I sell the loan for 102,000. I've just made 2,000 risk free. The guy who I sold it to paid 102,000, but now has the rights to the interest accrued on the loan and takes the risk associate with originating a loan.

I have never 'changed my tune'. I'll even reiterate it for you: Your understanding of the economics of the situation is capricious and lacks basic understanding of the underlying systems that you are attempting to discuss. I am not okay with your attempt to argue your point with no basis in reality as if it is actually a fact. My 'appeal to authority' is not akin to me just accepting the 'hive mind' or my 'indoctrination into the corporate drone squad' or whatever dumb shit you guys are saying in this current generation of ignorant internet economic experts. My authority in this situation is the academic research which has been performed before you and I were born, the studies that I have performed of that research, and the actual experience of the world based on that research.

Your authority is a gut feeling that you have that inflation is bad and deflation would make us richer. It's akin to religious fervor. Your economic understanding is equivalent to creationism. You are actively denying science because it doesn't agree with you. Like I said, this is not a debate. You have been wrong the whole time. It's like you asking me to debate you on why 2+2=5. And I did, because I believe that you can understand why you're wrong and learn. Looks like you're going to prove me wrong. But that's okay. Someone else will read these and see what you did and laugh at your mistakes and move on richer for the experience. That's okay with me.