> You can imagine all sorts of ways that money can be minted without being circulated, but as soon as you do, this becomes a factor in this ratio, does it not?

> You can imagine all sorts of ways that money can be minted without being circulated, but as soon as you do, this becomes a factor in this ratio, does it not? Yes, I think you're starting to get the point. It's not the money stock that causes inflation, but rather the money flow. Back to the original point that started this thread, increasing the money stock alone, that is to say growing the notional money supply, doesn't move prices. What moves prices is changes in the money flow, for which growing the money stock is neither necessary nor sufficient. > Has this occured in the US before? No, the USA has never experienced hyperinflation. Thankfully the principles involved are not specific to the USA. They apply generally. The operational particulars do change depending on whether or not the foreign exchange rate is floating or not. That's not really relevant here though. It all adds up to a collapse in the value of a currency being caused by a collapse in the goods and services that can be bought in that currency. That's why back when the world was more or less on the gold standard a single economy's collapse couldn't cause hyperinflation. However if, somehow, there were a collapse in global productivity then even gold would see hyperinflation, because you can't eat it and there'd be too much gold chasing too little food, fuel, and other essentials. > The labor market has changed _drastically_ in this time. You're really willing to assume such a simplistic explanation for these facts? At the aggregate level? Yes absolutely the law of supply and demand holds. It's the same as how I'm willing to apply the laws of thermodynamics to monstrously complex systems that I don't fully understand. I might not know how the parts all add up, but I do know that the equations will hold.