>>512640413
Also, the money supply has to grow not proportional to the amount of stuff but proportional to the amount of stuff available for purchase at any one given moment.
But stuff available for sale gets bought, so becomes unavailable for sale, at least for a while. And so the good/unit which was bought has to be replaced by newly produced good/unit to keep the amount of things available for purchase constant, if the money supply is constant.
So, in actual fact, the money supply size has to be proportional to the total rate of production of various things on which to spend money. Otherwise you have inflation or deflation, as the rate of production of things to buy is not decreases or increases with respect to the money supply.
Of course, there is some degree of self-correction/adjustment through the price mechanism making stuff less affordable and reducing the rate at which they are bought (and therefore the rate at which replacements have to be manufactured) so that they do not run out completely.
But, overall, you want the money supply growth to be proportional to the growth in the amount of stuff being made for the purpose of being sold. Otherwise, if the money supply grows faster, you have inflation.
The problem is that the money for the profits does not actually exist.
Profits are not mathematically possible without:
a) printing the money for them continuously and ever faster.
b) constantly cutting production costs by lowering quality, serving size or moving production to areas with less money (and therefore lower general level of prices and therefore lower production costs as well).
Or some combination of both.
And if foreign currencies intentionally devalue their currency faster than yours, your industry moves to those countries and you become a deindustrialised husk reliant on imports from that industry which relocated abroad, to countries which make sure to keep their currencies weaker than yours. This is what happened to the esteemed western partners.