> But in stable or deflationary systems there's no inflation to hide from and the price of 'things' is stable or can even decrease over time, so there's no longer a hoarding incentivization for 'things.'

Here's how things worked in the early 20th century: Let us say a farmer had taken out a mortgage in 1928, and let us say his mortgage payment was US$20 (equivalent of 1 oz. of gold). In May 1929 he would have had to have sold 114 pounds of cotton to earn $20 (or 18 bushels of wheat, 23 of corn, 44 of oats). By May 1932 he would have had to sold 369 pounds of cotton (or 38 bushels of wheat, …):

* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/030439...

* https://econbrowser.com/archives/2012/02/why_not_abolish

If he had 4 farm hands and paid each $5 (total $20), that's a lot more crops that need to be sold to cover payroll.

And it would have been the same for selling any good or service: a company that makes widgets needing to pay the same wages: sell more widgets to cover payroll, or reduce payroll (per head, or total heads).

Falling prices may seem good from a buyer/consumer point of view, but there's also the seller/supplier side of the equation.