>80% of all US dollars in existence were printed very recently

They were not. Minor changes to official definitions can make graphs look funny but doesn't change much else https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/01/whats-behind-the-rec...

When your model of how things work predicts one thing, and then the exact opposite thing happens, it's a good time to question what might be wrong with your model. (Hint: "printing money" doesn't automatically make money worth less.)

> "printing money" doesn't automatically make money worth less.)

Why not? Intuition says that it should. So I think that’s what GP is trying to understand.

It seems like you’ve substituted their model with yours but haven’t explained how yours works.

> Intuition says that it should. So I think that’s what GP is trying to understand.

Velocity [1].

Ignoring it is like sticking a water wheel in the ocean and asking why it doesn’t turn given the depth. Quantity doesn’t turn it. Flow does. And that depends on more than how much water is present.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money

Haven't heard the water wheel in the ocean analogy, and I love it! Thank you!

There's a very simple mathematical identity: MV=PQ

M is money supply, V is velocity, P is price level, and Q is all goods and services.

So if the economy produces the same amount of stuff (Q is constant) and if V falls in the inverse ratio as the increase in M, then the price level will not change.

There’s some underpinning techno-libertarian philosophy and assumptions pertaining to believing that claim. I wouldn’t get your central bank news from a website called techstartups. They didn’t print “US dollars” and it’s far more complicated than that. Research how QE works. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4113280-federal-reserve-nev.... Note: I found another seekingalpha “article” referencing techstartups.com too hah!

Military.