I haven't seen that in a while but I did read it.
I think it comes back to semantics actually....
what is inflation? Mises has a whole write up where he says inflation isn't clearly defined and if, IF we're going to use the term the only sensible definition is "money supply inflation ABOVE the increase in demand for money"
So according to Mises, supply inflation that tracks with the increase in demand isn't "inflation" at all.
Interesting. That one word seems to have countless dense essays devoted, and I just can't care enough to dive deeper.
I've always liked fixed supply for simple reasons that jive with my earliest intuitions about money. The shrinking supply in practice as a result of loss over time is a bit discomforting to think about, but not that much.
On Todd's paper, I reposted a drawing (don't ask me why I felt compelled to draw an analogy, a physically flawed one at that) recently that sums up the math in a few lines. It's a short read anyway though, and waxwings post on topic is good too, if you wanna revisit.
