> Imagine, for example, just giving everyone £10M to spend on whatever they want. This would not create any more stuff - but it would sure be a big equalizer fo

> Imagine, for example, just giving everyone £10M to spend on whatever they want. This would not create any more stuff - but it would sure be a big equalizer for people buying that stuff! This is mostly true, but it isn’t always, and it isn’t a perfect formula. For example, there are some goods that have zero or negligible marginal costs to provide. For example, a streaming service. If people use the extra money they get to buy Netflix subscriptions, it isn’t like there will suddenly be a shortage of Netflix streams. It doesn’t take many resources to add additional subscribers for Netflix… it isn’t exactly zero margin, but it is pretty damn close. This is even somewhat true for some physical goods. There is a lot of latent productivity in our economy… factories only running at 50% capacity, for example, or mines that aren’t producing all the ore they can because the demand doesn’t exist for what they produce. If demand suddenly increases because there is more money being spent, they can increase productivity without putting strain on the productive capacity of the industry. Obviously this is not infinite capacity, but it is why it is not as simple as “creating more money == 1 to 1 equivalent inflation”. In other words, you aren’t going to get a 10% inflation if you add 10% to the money supply. It would be some fraction of that 10%.