>In this case, "directly". How else is someone supposed to interpret "That has to happen. The government cannot deficit spend for free. The cost is inflation"

>In this case, "directly". How else is someone supposed to interpret "That has to happen. The government cannot deficit spend for free. The cost is inflation" and "It is a law of nature."? Now it's not direct, but happens through the ether. I can also argue inflation happens whenever my dog sees his shadow. We've gone from "It's a law of nature" to "only when the government does deficit spending" to "only when the loans aren't paid back" to "it's not direct". >What changed in 1914? The switch to a fiat money system, which enables endless deficit spending. What's the argument here? That the Unites States should revert to producing cotton? That the United States should return to having a smaller economy than 1920's India? The amount of economic change between 1914 and now; as well as the intentional effects of inflation on US investment absolutely dwarfs any comparison you are trying to make. Zero net inflation is not a desirable thing on it's own. This is a luddite argument; in lieu of actually providing evidence that hyperinflation is a direct consequence of deficit spending, you've simply argued we should to return to living like cavemen. It's like seeing a car crash and pointing to the invention of the Model T as the downfall of modern society. If the economic laws are so clear cut as you claim there shouldn't be ambiguity; and yet here we are as you struggle to even clearly explain why the "laws of nature" were so clearly upended in 2008.