I've answered your points just fine, you just ignore them and your answer for everything when you've got no real answer is something about global conspiracy theories. That's not my weakness, it's yours.
The market does not create money in equal proportion to real economic growth. Or at least, if that's your assertion, you're going to explain how that's possible. As money is an artificial construct and doesn't exist naturally, all value assigned by man in a society is also an artificial construct. We collectively determine what is valuable, and exchange that item for other things that are valuable. Absent fiat, traditionally gold has filled that role for historical and scarcity purposes. But at no time was the production of new gold ever magically matched to real economic growth so that the value of gold remained constant. That's what you just said would be the natural state of things 'absent the rigging,' which doesn't make any sense at all. Perhaps there's a global conspiracy theory that could explain it...
Rather than argue about who said what and all that, could you humor me just one more time, and provide an answer to my point: "the entire reason deflation is so painful is that supply and demand were distorted by central bank/government-driven financial asset inflation in the first place, during the 'good' times. This has been the dynamic throughout all of modern history, enabled by the ability to print money and debt. Anti-hard-money commentators actually use deflation as an argument against hard money." Thank you.
There is no need for the total supply of base money to grow. (The prosperity and growth of Renaissance Italian cities, and China from the 1500s through 1800s, where base money was physical gold and silver, serve as counter examples to the idea that a 'flexible' money supply is necessary.)
In a truly free market scenario, *credit* would grow and shrink according to the natural rate of economic growth, and *private* desire or lack thereof to invest or spend. Since there was no systemic bias from the elites' policies, people would only invest and spend what they could afford to lose. The economy would be naturally stable as people wouldn't panic from losing savings. (They would keep their core savings in hard cash.) People would tend to be in jobs where work was really desired by those who pay for it, so employment and demand would be stable.
Now this is not to say there wouldn't be natural swings in economic conditions due to genuinely misjudged investments, project disasters, etc., but that is unavoidable under either system. What we would avoid is the much more frequent and worse state-driven booms and busts, from the Tulip bubble to the 2008 crisis.
True, the supply of gold and silver fluctuates independently from economic growth. This just goes to show no money is absolutely perfect. But we're nowhere near having to worry about fighting nature, when we have human beings deliberately pretending money and credit are good while the fiction holds, and deliberately making the suffering worse, by tightening money to protect their system, once the bust occurs.
There is no need for the state to get involved in stimulating credit formation, since the desire to profit from a good investment is universal. The only reason governments and central banks get involved is to benefit the elites.