Investing in the productive economy hasn't yielded a positive return for the last ten years, and yes, it's fair to expect the market to compensate you for deferring consumption because society is decidedly not indifferent between whether you consume resources now or later. It would be one thing if investment opportunities did this while cash could not, but that is not where we are today.

(It's fine if you want to toss out the concept of deservingness [though less so if you want to paint me as a racist], but you can't get around how rewarded behavior will tend to happen more and less rewarded behavior, less. So unless you want all behavior to shift toward consuming all real resources immediately, including "seed corn", you have just as much an interest in seeing an economy strike a balance between present an future consumption, no matter how much you hate rich people or deem them racist.)

And getting people to invest in productive enterprises under threat of their money withering away is pure Machiavellianism, not a system you'd come up with after careful consideration of how to best reach a Pareto optimum. It would be one thing if the market did compensate people for deferral of consumption (through positive real after-tax interest rates), in a magnitude that reflects society's current willingness to move their purchases forward, but "noble" (and very non-secret, conspiracy-theory-not-required) manipulations of financial markets have prevented this from happening.

It is not an obviously superior economic system when people have to make haphazard, ill-considered loans just to have a chance at preserving purchasing power.

And finally, an inflationary currency doesn't solve the problem of investors requiring positive real expected return; it just rearranges the problem. Nor is it some kind of boon to have exporters that are advantaged by cheap local currency. If that's so great, why not debase the currency to nothing? We have a name for working for others for nothing, and it's not something we generally aim for.