I'm hoping you can answer this given your credentials (it looks like an essay but it's really just a few questions):

I always learned in Macroeconomics that a slightly inflationary currency is ideal under most circumstances. I understand why you wouldn't want high inflation, but the argument against deflation was that it caused a cycle where people delay purchases so they get more, decreasing aggregate demand, further decreasing economic output, possibly resulting in even worse deflation than before.

What I don't understand is, why does it matter if the currency itself is inflationary if we have deflationary assets we can purchase with that currency? I can already purchase gold and Bitcoin and shares in companies etc. with my cash so rather than just letting it sit in my account, I can just buy those instead. Sure my money gets sent to someone who previously did own those, but there's also the case where I simply increase the total market cap of what I bought by exactly as much as I spent (not really possible on an individual level mostly, but in aggregate). The net effect of the second scenario is the same: my money didn't go towards purchasing anything productive and is instead parked in something deflationary. Sure someone is left "holding the bag" so to speak, but since all of these assets are deflationary, the holders of the cash are incentivized to continue shuffling the money back into deflationary assets.

The US effectively left the gold standard in 1933, and I'm having a hard time finding economic data from before then, but I know both the US and global economy grew massively in size and on a per capita level from 1776 to 1933, and I remember reading that the USD was deflationary for a period of at least 100 years (maybe more). Was the economic growth during the dollar's deflationary period simply in spite of the widespread use of deflationary currency, and how so?

Finally, what makes a debt-backed currency good? One of the problems I have with it is that if increases in the money supply only come from more debt, it drives policy encouraging people and businesses to enter debt. Obviously debt is just a monetary tool that is neither inherently good nor evil, but debt can exist under a non debt-backed currency too, so the net effect to me seems to be creating debt solely to force people to give banks most of the money supply (so it can be relended and expand and grow the economy, yadda yadda). Why is this good for the economy as a whole, and not just bankers? I feel like the actual purpose of this is to stop people from pulling all of their money from banks whenever they feel like it; that is, it removes any incentive to keep your money out of the banking system.

Actually one more thing, the way the Fed issues money only directly to member banks irks me because there can really only be a finite number of member banks. Because every dollar must flow through these banks when the debt creating it is issued from the fed and again when it is collected, and these banks are obviously only taking money when they know they can lend it out at better rates, this creates a rentier relationship for the entire economy where all money creation and destruction MUST come through these member banks and everyone else essentially gets taxed for the privilege of borrowing from them.

Why is this (lending to member banks) better than simply growing the money supply by printing money and giving it directly to citizens? They would still take the money and spend it around, and if the money were inflationary, it would end up in banks who could lend it out anyway. So it seems the net effect would be about the same, absent the rentier banks lending directly from the Fed, except the Fed would no longer need to decrease the money supply by simply not reissuing debt. Is it that important for the economy that we have the ability to decrease the money supply? Moreover, why can't we simply do both?

So

1. How come deflationary assets do not decrease aggregate demand the way deflationary currency does?

2. Why was there so much economic growth from ~1700-1900 if all of that currency was deflationary? Was the growth simply in spite of deflation, and would have been much greater otherwise?

3. Is the main benefit of debt-backed currency that a central bank has direct control over the money supply's creation and contraction?

4. Do debt-backed currency's comparative benefits (which are at least ability to directly decrease the money supply) outweigh the benefits of expanding the money supply by issuing money directly to citizens (e.g. more consumer spending, higher velocity of money, essentially not needing to "rent" every dollar from banks)? What about a hybrid model?