The only economically optimal solution is one in which there is no redistribution. This only occurs in a currency that approximates the ideal of no inflation and no deflation. Such a currency or multiple currencies would maximize the incentive to invest without resulting in a redistributive decline in purchasing power if one chooses not to consume or invest.
..snip..
Thaaanos we have profound differences in opinion. I have broken your post down into its core arguments below.
1) Sound money does not generalize on the macroscale.
This is a claim unsupported by the historical record. Societies including our own have lived under a gold standard in the past. Rome's currency was sound for more or less the entire history of the Roman republic. It was not until the Roman republic failed and Rome became empire that the currency was debased in earnest
![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.silverbearcafe.com%2Fprivate%2F06.14%2Fimages%2FCollapse-Of-Roman-Silver-Monetary-System-1.jpg&t=610&c=bc5OEfolFXEfpQ)
2) Slight inflation targeted at 2% does not have major redistributive effects.
An inflation rate of 2% will result in a loss of almost 50% percent of purchasing power over a period of a single generation 30 years. I would call that a major redistributive effect.
3) The redistributive effects from inflation are "equalizing effects".
I completely disagree inflation primarily benefits first movers those granted the authority to debase the currency. Banks and those with political connections are the prime beneficiaries. Inflation redistributes from bottom and especially the middle class to the financial elite. Rather then an equalizing effect it worsens inequality.
4) Knowledge does not come cheap... So funding will always be needed to equalize the playing field...a slight inflation guaranties the availability of funding.
There is nothing wrong with working to finance an education. Indeed this used to be how it was normally done until we decided to sell out our children's future with government guaranteed non dischargeable student loans. The "guaranteed" of funding you speak up results in ballooning out of control costs malinvestments in non productive fields and lifetimes of debt servitude.
5) It is necessity that at least one equalizing and redistributive force will exist. Redistribution in form of diffusion of wealth is a stability requirement.
To the degree this is true this is what taxation is for. Taxation, however, is much more transparent and thus requires both public justification and also allows for opposition to develop.
6) There is no such thing as morality in macroeconomics, morality comes in politics.
Cooperative rather than predatory behavior develops naturally over time in transparent systems composed of repeatedly interacting agents able to choose between cooperation and defection. Immoral behavior in economic interactions is not sustainable over the long run as victims either go extinct or learn to protect themselves.
For the group cooperation is the superior economic choice. Subgroups with rule systems that facilitate cooperation aka morality will therefore outcompete and eventually replace those without such rules. The fact that Macroeconomics devotes little attention to long term sustainability of systems or the role of morality in maintaining this stability says more about the infancy and incompleteness of macroeconomics then it does about morality.