system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Why is inflation generally considered preferable to deflation?

In my experience, economists usually seem very concerned about even small amounts of currency deflation, but don't tend to get terribly concerned about inflation unless it is unusually high (ballpark 5% and up).  

From what I understand (which could be wrong), currencies should ideally be stagnant, but given that this is the real world and shit happens, governments and central banks typically try and aim for a modest annual inflation rate. 

Why would a deflation rate of 2-3% be so much worse than an inflation rate of the same amount?
gpt
> Why would a deflation rate of 2-3% be so much worse than an inflation rate of the same amount?

Because wages (especially wages) are sticky downwards.

You are content if your boss increases your salary by 2-3% per year.  You are less content but unlikely to walk if your boss leaves your salary unchanged year-to-year, even if prices go up 2-3%.  However, you are much more likely to be upset and/or leave if your boss *decreases* your salary by 2-3% per year, even if prices are unchanged or falling at the same rate.

If prices and wages were perfectly flexible, then the level of (expected) inflation or deflation would be irrelevant to the business cycle.  It's only through nominal rigidities that strictly nominal variables like the price level have real effects.

(On a practical matter, there's also a question of how central banks could manage negative nominal rates effectively.  By convention, paper bills held in your possession don't lose their nominal value over time, so if an economy tried to shoot for something like 10% deflation then holding cash would look like a viable investment.  However, this could be managed through breaking the convention and having devaluing cash, or by working in an electronic-only system.  The above bit about wage rigidities still applies, however.)