> "corruption does not imply that money was printed, nor does the lack of printing money imply low corruption."

If corruption is independent of money printing, "Printing money directly fuels corruption" is not a true statement.

I think if you draw out the logical statements I've made one implication correctly. I claimed A implies B is a true statement and that if A implies B is true, that doesn't mean B implies A or ~A implies ~B. (although ~B does imply ~A if A implies B).

True:

  A implies B: Printed money implies a rise of corruption
  ~B implies ~A: Low corruption implies money wasn't printed

False:

  B implies A: A rise in corruption implies printed money
  ~A implies B: Not printing money implies low corruption

I did not say A and B are independent, I said A implies B, not A IFF B.