"Your use of terminology and/or examples are poorly chosen."
My examples are entirely appropriate.
"Gas / oil / crude / refined and milk and other 'foods and foodstuff' as well as metals and currencies and many other very volatile economic"
Which is why the government wants to exclude them from the 'core inflation' number. However, as my example pointed out, over a few decades, this argument is incorrect when they have shown a consistent deflationary pattern. This is due to constant innovation - for foodstuffs, it is due to better farming techniques + fertilizers.
"Inflation and deflation are terms most appropriate to overall economy of relatively stable-priced over time "capital goods and services (~70% in the US)" or few "capital segments" or "core" of the economy like real-estate, for example."
Except when you limit it to that definition, you completely ignore the cost of living changes for the actual consumer as well as ignore the impacts of monetary policies by making an artificially limited basket not really reflective of actual price changes that the consumer actually faces.
"Why the economic deflation is bad? Because a lot of businesses / producers would stop producing and/or stock up on stuff they would sell at a loss, and the customers would wait to buy stuff they could buy cheaper later
#14 | POSTED BY CUTIEPIE"
Again, if that is the case, no one would buy a computer today - or solar panels - or the dozens of other products that people know will offer a higher value in the future if they hold off for a bit. Deflation is like having a strong currency - it makes imports cheap and your cost of living will decrease. The people that hate it - and control most of the academic papers now - are the bankers who need a whole class of people constantly in debt along with governments constantly in debt. Governments constantly try to inflate their way out of trouble and it never seems to work (ask Argentina, Zimbabwe, etc). You have an irrational fear of deflation.