A couple things. Your first statement appears to be circular, it doesn't answer the question of why an entity would want to invest their money on an uncertain venture when it would just be worth more doing nothing with it. Secondly, I'm not sure what the rest of the first paragraph is in aid of, it seems like you're stating that capital is useful which I don't think was ever in question.
Sure, the article never mentioned anything about deflationary currency, but you were responding to a comment that a deflationary currency would have issues that you seemed to respond in opposition to. If you don't have a stance on deflationary currency, what is your argument for or against?
On that note, I believe that bitcoin fits the definition of a deflationary currency, and having looked up 'stable' money supply haven't found a consensus on what that means. Could you explain how you define that?
> it doesn't answer the question of why an entity would want to invest their money on an uncertain venture when it would just be worth more doing nothing with it.
Simple, because the investment would return more than the natural rate of deflation alone would.
On its face that would appear to be a bald assertion. Investments inherently contain risk which would dissuade potential investors if they have a stable source of growth. Investments would have to have very high upside to be worth a stable but lower rate of deflation. Secondly, I'm not sure how you can be certain that investment returns, without regard for risks, could be higher than the deflation rate.
> Investments inherently contain risk which would dissuade potential investors if they have a stable source of growth.
Stable sources of growth have existed for decades but somehow most investors aren't just going all in on those. That's because investors care more about good risk-adjusted returns than lame guaranteed returns.
>Investments would have to have very high upside to be worth a stable but lower rate of deflation.
Investments with risk-adjusted nominal returns above 0% are worth it if the currency is deflationary: even if the investment only has a nominal 1%/year return and the currency deflates at 2%/year, that's a 3%/year real return. So it's still better than just holding the currency, even though the nominal return is lower than the deflation rate.
> Secondly, I'm not sure how you can be certain that investment returns, without regard for risks, could be higher than the deflation rate.
Returns on most investments aren't certain in an inflationary environment either, so I'm not sure what's your point.
To your third point, investments in an inflationary environment are necessary because otherwise people would _lose_ money by doing nothing with it. It's better to risk for some return, than lose it by doing nothing. That's what separates it from an deflationary environment in that people gain more money by doing nothing with it. They don't need to incur risk to gain more.
This leads to your first 2 points, where people might still want to invest to get a potential higher return than the base deflation rate, investments would drop compared to an inflationary environment. In the inflationary environment investments are necessary to prevent the loss of value, whereas it isn't in a deflationary one.
Sure, the article never mentioned anything about deflationary currency, but you were responding to a comment that a deflationary currency would have issues that you seemed to respond in opposition to. If you don't have a stance on deflationary currency, what is your argument for or against?
On that note, I believe that bitcoin fits the definition of a deflationary currency, and having looked up 'stable' money supply haven't found a consensus on what that means. Could you explain how you define that?