As tripperday pointed out consumers will delay purchases in anticipation of falling prices.

Falling prices being a problem is a common misconception. Electronics keep getting cheaper and better but people keep buying them anyway, which proves that it's not actually a problem.

People buy whatever they want and can afford (and sometimes things they can't). But when prices are falling, then people will have more money left over for buying other things, which is good for, you know, the economy and all.

What you're not seeing is that even saving money is good for the economy, because savings are capital that can be used for productive investments. Savings --> Capital --> Investment --> Production --> Wealth --> Purchasing Power --> Savings .. and the virtuous cycle repeats.

Banks can not function well when deflation happens because they will be unable to match, with an interest rate, the value of money's ability to grow on its own by simple hoarding.

Huh? What's this supposed to mean? What exactly do banks need to "match" and why? It's also interesting how you call saving money "hoarding" (just like you've been trained to), even despite what I showed above. It sure is evil of people to accumulate capital that can be used for investments that ultimately increase everyone's prosperity!!

Even more, they will become much less likely to borrow money as they can just sit on the cash until they can afford a Cadillac with the same amount.

And getting more for your money is.. Bad? :D Look, we're not obligated to spend all of our money all the time. It's just that the beneficiaries of the current status quo really want us to do that, because maintaining the status quo even for a little longer is predicated on us doing that.

But you're just spreading the misinformation they've given you.

Whose problem is it if you don't want to buy a car? Or a house? Or a Snickers bar? Why would you be obligated to buy anything? You're constantly not buying countless things, and somehow the world survives just fine.

If someone can afford to pay $800 a month on a thirty year mortgage in 2015, by the time that mortgage comes to fruition in 2045, $800 a month is nothing.

Well, the bank will confiscate your house somehow long before paying your mortgage becomes "free" for you. Good luck suing them! Oh, and a loaf of bread will cost $500 or whatever. Yay inflation?

The borrower is paying on principal that is essentially worth much less, but the bank is able to make the loan because they get their money at the beginning when it's still worth a lot.

What? The bank loses control of the money that's valuable in the beginning, and the reason they would go through with that is the expectation of a return on that investment in the future. But as a currency loses its value, so does the ROI. You're saying that's good for the bank?

And then your $800 mortgage payment will cripple you with its increased worth, but equal utility. It's the same house, but now you are paying a huge portion to the bank with dollars worth much more than they used to be.

That's only a problem if there's a sudden, massive deflation. If you end up in deep shit because of deflation, it's unfortunate, but then you should have made better choices.

On the plus side, everything else you need would be really really cheap, and your income might be even higher than when you took out the loan, so.. you wouldn't even be in trouble!

The best part of paying the same nominal amount for your mortgage payment, but with dollars worth more, is that your dollars can't go to something else. You don't get to buy a PS4 because you have to make your house payment.

What are you saying? If my purchasing power increases, then it's easier for me to afford that PS4. What's the problem? What's the "best part" about a non-existent problem? Are you just assuming my nominal income would go down correspondingly?

If you think that understanding how banks and economics work is trolling you, I invite you to go back to Reddit.

Well, we've just established that it's you who's confused about economics. Not me. I'd invite you to think twice before engaging in snarky condescension.