>if the money supply increases by 10%, prices will also increase by 10% eventually

is it really this simple?

No there’s also reshooting dollars from foreign countries, the debt, people’s purchasing power etc…

>>60753812 (OP)
The energy efficient models cost 10x as much to buy and repair but they use 0.00000343 fewer watts in sleep mode. Think of all the money you're saving.

Kind of, but it's not that simple.
For example, just because the money supply goes up by 10% doesn't mean your cousin is going to charge you 10% more for a car suddenly.
Money supply shocks take time to impact markets, which will then respond by price increase hikes across the board over time in different ways depending on the markets.

- Housing market might be impacted differently than, lets say, the pokemon card business

But yes, massive money supply increases WILL increase prices of goods in demand that are limited in supply/manpower to produce them

>>60753812 (OP)
Not in the case of the US because it forces the entire world to use the dollar, "diluting" its inflation.
Also prices are controlled by competition and interest rates.

Not always no. For example, in a growing economy constrained by deflationary monetary policy, money supply increasing 10% could cause growth to raise 5% let’s say, meaning the impact is actually only 5% inflation. Money itself is the basic supply and demand equation in any capital economy.

Only if the total sum of goods and services remains constant, money and real things are essentually a liquidity pair

>>60753812 (OP)
I think we should increase the money supply so everyone can have money

>>60753812 (OP)

No, if the money supply increases by 10%, prices will increase by 20%.

>>60753812 (OP)
no. you can see right now that M2 continues to grow as prices dump

>>60753812 (OP)
No, look at Japan. The velocity of money matters.

>>60753812 (OP)
Not if the economy also increases 10% in size

>>60753812 (OP)
No. If the money supply increases by 10% but so does production, prices will stay the same.

Hang all of them and use metal money again.

>>60753812 (OP)
Let's say you, me, and Bob live in an isolated community run by a small government. Bob makes 100 grams of drugs weekly and sells it to everyone in the community. You and I do the same with alcohol and guns, respectively.

For simplicity's sake, let's say both your and my income is $1, and we use that to buy drugs. Bob, wanting to move all of his drugs for maximum profit, sets the price at 50 grams of dope for $1. Bob gets the most money possible, and we get the most drugs possible. Everybody wins.

Now, let's say the government comes in and says they want more guns. So they print an extra dollar out of thin air and use it to buy my guns. Now my income is $2 but yours is still $1. When it's drug buying time, I tell Bob I want to buy $2 worth. BUT Bob doesn't have enough supply to sell both of us $3 of drugs at the current price! Wanting to maximize profits, Bob raises the price of drugs so that $1 only buys 33.33 grams (or $1.50 for 50 grams).

Now, Bob gets $3 and still gets to sell all of his drugs (Win). I get more drugs; 66.66 grams (Win). You, however get less drugs and everyone pays a higher price (Lose). So, the government increased the monetary supply by 50% and prices increased by 50%.

Now, this is just a controlled thought experiment to illustrate the concept in its purest form. If you add more complexity (different markets, types of actors, types of demand, investment, etc) the direct monetary supply to price of goods relationship gets muddled.

>>60753812 (OP)
No, because the captation of capital isn't evenly distributed, and the richer you are, the less you consoom goods proportionally speaking.
For example if there is 10% extra supply of USD, the ultrarichs will get 7% of this cut since they are the closest to the cash tap, but they can only put this money to "sleep", mostly in digitalized ponzis (either it be stocks, corpo bonds, shitcoins, etfs...) who do not have much impact on the real economy (manufactured goods & services). So in the end only 3% of this extra money supply will ends up in the hands of the so called middle class and trigger inflation.

tldr is richfags are so overbloated and greedy they absorb most of the extra liquidity and can't do anything meaningful with it.

>>60753812 (OP)
Yes but that includes prices of bonds and equities, for example. It doesn't all go to goods and services.

>>60754081
I think we should increase the money supply so my bags will pump

>>60753812 (OP)
If you are the furthest away from the money printer yes.

>>60753812 (OP)
Yes. Period. Anyone adding extra is coping.

>>60753812 (OP)
pretty much, with a little bit of variation and time delay

the cope by mainstream economics is things like >>60753858, "if productivity increases by x then inflation will akshually be lower"
what they don't understand is that monetary expansion disproportionately favors non-productive investment. why bust your ass getting licenses, hiring experts, renting property and waiting for years to open a factory that will net you 4%/year long term when you can just invest on the SP500 for 7%/year from day 0?
as far as 99% of the population is concerned, they need physical and tangible goods for their livelihoods to improve: houses, cars, fuel, clothes, food

>>60754126
This, M1 is meaningless..