I agree with your point about asset inflation but I think that the author of the article is well aware of it based on these lines: > Doubling the amount of gol

I agree with your point about asset inflation but I think that the author of the article is well aware of it based on these lines: > Doubling the amount of gold in a country will have no effect on the price of cheese if you give all the gold to rich people and they just bury it in their yards, or use it to make gold-plated submarines (this is, incidentally, why quantitative easing, the strategy of buying long-term government bonds to put money into circulation, did not work either). What actually matters is spending. Are you suggesting that negative interest rates are some kind of solution? I think they would make the problem worse, just like QE; the effect would just be to expand the money supply by injecting more money into the economy on the basis of arbitrary rules. With negative rates, the incentive becomes that everyone should borrow all the time (because borrowing becomes profitable), so then the question will quickly become "who is allowed/qualified to borrow?" and the answer will either be "rich people" or some other kind of unfair arbitrary criteria. Negative interest rates are a terrible idea. All the extra money will be absorbed by cryptocurrencies, advertising platforms and other speculative investments.