It is a mathematical certainty that if the monetary supply went up by 25%, someone has to have 25% more money in an account somewhere.
I'm not sure where this 'no evidence' accusation comes from. It isn't in contention that the monetary supply went up 25%, the population isn't growing at anything near that sort of rate. There aren't many ways to make that work out, mathematically, unless someone (realistically, quite a few someone) have 25% more dollars in an account.
What you haven't provided any explanation of is why you think there's a small group of people that suddenly have 25% more money scot free. Read rojeee's explanation above. The burden of proof is on you. That's simply not how it works.
Inflation is what, 2%? And the velocity of money is around 1. It is hardly speculation to say that the typical doesn't-save consumer hasn't got 25% more money in their account. Someone does.
If you're talking about the "M1 can _only_ be held..." comment, rojeee is wrong. M1 includes physical currency [0], so entities other than commercial banks can hold it. If I substitute M2 for M1 the point is still indecipherable. Eg - "the increase in M1 has little to no impact on the aggregate money supply" - as far as I'm concerned the M2 is the monetary supply so that makes no sense.
> The burden of proof is on you.
M2 went up 25%, Pidgeonhole principle: someone's account is up 25%. Inflation went up 2%: it isn't ordinary consumers. QED.
I'm not sure where this 'no evidence' accusation comes from. It isn't in contention that the monetary supply went up 25%, the population isn't growing at anything near that sort of rate. There aren't many ways to make that work out, mathematically, unless someone (realistically, quite a few someone) have 25% more dollars in an account.