It's funny that you say this, because prior to the adoption of fiat money systems, class-warfare leaders agitated for decades (centuries, even?) in favor of a s

It's funny that you say this, because prior to the adoption of fiat money systems, class-warfare leaders agitated for decades (centuries, even?) in favor of a system of fiat money, because they saw fiat money as a way to reduce wealth inequality. The logic goes like this: 1: In general, poor people borrow money from rich people. Interest payments on these loans is a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich: an increase in debt inequality. 2: Fiat money is much more subject to inflation than commodity money. 3: When inflation occurs, the real value of debts is reduced. 4: By adopting fiat money and the accompanying continuous inflation, a situation would be created whereby poor people could borrow money from the rich, use it to create wealth for themselves, and then effectively pay back less than they had borrowed. I'm not saying they were right, I'm just describing their ideas. I find the whole situation ironic.