I agree it's somewhat weak on the historical trend argument, and in explaining the relevance of the interest rate to inflation argument. > - Similarly, the arg

I agree it's somewhat weak on the historical trend argument, and in explaining the relevance of the interest rate to inflation argument. > - Similarly, the arguments that COVID or Brexit should simply be blips seems like an outright denial that economic change happens. Wars, epidemics, and trade agreements shape history by reordering which economies are competitive. He doesn't make a general case for such a denial. Only that COVID and Brexit are going to be blips specifically with respect to inflation. From the article: > If either Brexit of coronavirus cause an inflation blip it will not last, and we need not worry about it in that case. So neither is the ‘something else’ that must be motivating inflation fears. I found the arguments about the net money supply to be somewhat persuasive. And as for alternative QE money being siphoned and being similarly regressive, I'm inclined to agree with the redistribution part of daniel-s's comment, and to infer that direct cash payments to individuals resist being siphoned so easily: > Ultimately, printing money doesn't make anyone more productive or produce anything. All it does is redistribute wealth from those that were first to get the new free money away from those that were last to contact it. Edit: I assumed this meant it redistributes to the first to contact it, but on second reading, I’m not sure the intended meaning.