And then there’s the claim that hard money is the key to growth. Milton Friedman turned over in his graveFriedman always thought in terms of aggregates when it came to money supply and never was able to grasp the insight of such economists as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard, who explained that money's impact on the structure of the economy is never neutral, but is an advantage to those who get the money first.
Not surprisingly, economic regime apologistse have designed economic indicators in a way to imply the economy is doing well, when it is simply an advantage to the elitists who get new money pumped out to them first. For example, the indicator, "core price" inflation, is seen as the best measure of price inflation and is seen as not climbing significantly and thus all is well on the price inflation front. But "core" inflation is an indicator that provides an edge for elitist who get new money first. It is a price inflation indicator that excludes gas and food. So, yeah, for the elitist who gets new money first, gas and food are a small part of his budget, but for the poor schmuck and the end of the money printing line, who only gets the new money (and less of it) after prices are up and where gas and food are a major part of the budget, the real price inflation he faces is dissed as insignificant. Indeed, for the elitist, the price inflation the poor schmuck faces is insignificant!
Friedman by his aggregative thinking on money, which failed to recognize the non-neutrality of newly printed money, served up on a platter a confusion that regime apologists like Krugman bring out to attack anyone, anytime who attempts to discuss the structural and price inflationary damage done by central bank money printing. Don't fall for it. Money printing has bad consequences for all, except the elitists.