[imtringued]

>I’m not sure how to proceed. The notion that one could print money and have each currency unit correspond to the same amount of physical goods is prima facie false.

The entire problem is that it's not false at all. There are various ways to produce more physical goods without employing more domestic workers. Every time the fed is printing money that money gets invested in a way that does not result in decreased unemployment. It's being used to produce more physical goods which keeps the price of physical goods constant.

Ultimately the only truly scarce "good" is labor. Everything derives from it. If prices are not rising that means labor is not scare at all, which is idiotic because there are lots of ways to productively deploy that labor.

[chordalkeyboard]

> The entire problem is that it's not false at all. There are various ways to produce more physical goods without employing more domestic workers. Every time the fed is printing money that money gets invested in a way that does not result in decreased unemployment. It's being used to produce more physical goods which keeps the price of physical goods constant.

I was unclear and I should have included ceteris paribus, but you’re correct. The fed keeps the price of goods constant when it should be decreasing.

> Ultimately the only truly scarce "good" is labor. Everything derives from it. If prices are not rising that means labor is not scare at all, which is idiotic because there are lots of ways to productively deploy that labor.

Raw materials are also truly scarce, and you’ve neglected to apply the same level of analysis here as you did above.