"It has been known for centuries that large increases in the stock of money result in broad price increases, and there is a mountain of historical evidence to s

"It has been known for centuries that large increases in the stock of money result in broad price increases, and there is a mountain of historical evidence to support this notion." There isn't at all that doesn't end up being comparing apples and pears, or curve fitting to a belief. Because there is no mechanism for £100 in a drawer or kept in a bank account to cause inflation. Which are the only two ways that money will show up for you to complain about it. Moreover money was not created by QE. All that happened was existing money was swapped for a different type of money. In physical terms the duration and interest rate was different which altered the yield curve. That's it. But it didn't work. We've had a decade of interest rate jiggling and none of it has caused price rises to stay in bounds in either direction. There comes a point when we have to reject the hypothesis. "Creating" base money didn't cause price rises for a decade (and still aren't in Japan), and changing interest rates or threatening to change interest rates didn't stop price rises breaking out. It's time to reject the 'adjusting interest rates and money stock controls the economy' hypothesis, and shift to something far more direct. Monetary policy is at best hopelessly ineffective and at worst doesn't work at all.