Jared thanks for the article, but I hope you'll forgive me for saying pure economics does not apply any longer, so I agree with you economists are not being taught what they should be taught, because education itself has been commodified, to make delivery of knowledge in return for money most efficient - minimum amount of knowledge for maximimum money in exchange.
Personally I don't think it is right that we should think it is ok to own property, or knowledge, or anything which was produced systemically by the collective, it is all public good, and should all be public. This is something I would define as a requirement for the system coming next, and there is definitely a system coming next, unless some crazy idiot thinking utopia or anything like it would not be a good thing for them, because maybe they would get bored or something.
Anyhow, the thing missing from economics now is energy, making economics something closer maybe to Engineering, rather than the isolated discipline that economics has always been.
You hinted at the thing which has physically changed when you mentioned energy, specifically domestic and community solar energy, which makes an incredible difference to everything, especially inflation and the creation of money.
The only reason I know about this is that I am a long practicing Systems Engineer, which is multidisciplinary by definition, we have to take into account all dependent factors in any system regardless of discipline, to be able to analyse the whole system, and I've been pretty much devoted to the study of the global energy problem since around 2017, at own expense, non profit, seeing it coming since around then.
Where the systems analysis / research leads, is to conclude a few things:
The financial system is no longer closed, it can't be considered as a fixed amount of capital vs issue of money.
The reason for this is that the economic product created from solar energy is additional to the capital of Earth, since nothing is destroyed per Joule yielded, for what is created from solar.
This is unlike anything we've seen in history, the result of an actual creative existence, as opposed to a destructive existence, all things having cost of creation previously, in terms of energy, which all came extracted from Earth.
The cost was always ultimately to Earth. A side effect and symptom of that is the constant raising of temperature, by the constant conversion of matter and energies of Earth to things always including temperature, the more population, the more profound this effect, until now when we are finally starting to admit, we are destroying the planet, rapidly.
We don't need to go into the profitable business of CO2 politics to establish this, all we need to do is mathematically sign energy in and out of the planet, like a load connected to an energy source, positive from sun, supplied to Earth, negative extracted from Earth, and trace it all through with motivations to all causes and effects, to establish what is "Good" energy use, and what is "Bad" energy use.
Education never did this previously either, I can tell you this as a recipient of a lot of years of technical education including maths and physics, to PhD candidate level, including being a Chartered Engineer, and also establishing historical energy handling patents. I can confidently say I know probably more then most folk on the planet about energy, and yet I didn't think of, or know already to put mathematical signs on the energy in and out of our planet, and yet this is an existential matter, for which our planet is now burning.
Anyhow, the long and short of it is, we are not monetising the only actual energy from source, the sun.
It can only be monetised by money given for free, i.e. a solar indexed UBI.
We effectively have a contract to do this. Our contract is with the sun. We accepted the contract when we accepted the energy. The contract says we have to use it or burn.
Using it means converting it to things other than the heat it would have created if we didn't use it, or if nature didn't use it (Notice we've removed a lot of nature that used to use it).
In order to do that, we have to monetise it, because money is the only transport mechanism we can use to transport it to all needing it, to carry out each of our own metabolistic and creative functions.
How it affects what you were saying is that the two ways you identified to correct inflation no longer apply.
Now there is a third. It isn't optional, but required.
We have to monetise the solar product being created.
You pointed out that creation of product lagging supply of money causes inflation.
Correct, but what we are seeing is actually issue of money lagging creation of product.
Conventional logic might try to predict the effects of this as money increasing in value, rather than losing value.
But really, when have we ever seen this in known history?
We actually don't know because we never saw it before, but we have to recognise we are seeing it now, the value of product created historically from solar is significant, hundreds of billions for the UK, probably trillions for the larger countries with higher proportions of domestica and community solar vs utliites energy industry such as germany.
It isn't so high per head as yet for the US, because the US is heavily retarded in domestic and community solar, probably due to the historical high availability of fossil fuels in US.
I've done some provisonal sums for the US and UK, but not Germany, I could not find the required utilities data for germany yet, though that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, Ai will find it, if it hasn't already, and Ai knows how to do all the calculations, and actually how to analyse and even control the final system we are moving to, identifying its own golden use case, the global controller making even banks redundant, moving us as needed over to the new system, probably quicker than we can blink.
Here is what the sums look like (UK is linked therein):
PS Won't taxing the rich just motivate them to increase their gains, therefore increasing the pressure on inflation?
