The quantity theory of money is trivially shown to be nonsense just by considering what happens to savings (i.e. nothing). You need to up your analysis if you want to truly understand.

▲

philipallstar 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What happened to savings in Zimbabwe when they printed trillions of dollars? Did that do anything to what those savings would buy?

	▲	hgomersall 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Here is a discussion of Zimbabwe more complete that I'm likely to write in a comment on HN: https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=3773

▲

joe_mamba 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You've made accusations but have not brought arguments to support that my take on EU leaders and elites being the ones fucking us, our CoL and purchasing power, is wrong.

And savings absolutely did eventually get obliterated by excessive Covid money printing, what are you on about?

▲

hgomersall 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I've not made any accusations, nor do I think that the elites are not to blame. I said that "money printing" is not the problem here. The reason it's not the problem is because the quantity of money simply reflects savings. By focussing on "money printing", you're missing the actual problems. Arguably, that's the point, since the elite tend to do well when money is considered a scarce commodity.

Sure, spending might cause inflationary effects, but that's orthogonal to quantity (flows not stocks), but then economics is the science of confusing stocks with flows.

	▲	Cold_Miserable 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"Currency printing" and inflation are exactly the same thing.