This isn't relevant in the case of broad increases in the macroeconomic supply of dollars, since they affect the supply/demand curves of everything in the economy simultaneously (albeit more at the source of injection as described by the article, e.g. stocks).
For example, you can't really "ramp up" production of burgers in response to higher dollar supply without ramping down the production of salads, unless there were people doing nothing to start with (which is why inflation is related to unemployment, to a degree). But by the same token, those dollars used to incentivize higher production can at best drive a short-term boost in production, as the costs to produce the burgers quickly rise as inflation propagates throughout the rest of their supply chain and the real value returns to where it was. Meanwhile, the expenses for everyone have increased and people who save money or don't want to hop jobs to get an inflation raise have been punished.
What’s “not relevant” in the case of macroeconomic money supply changes are models that try to imagine the whole economic system as if it’s a barter economy containing just dollars and cheeseburgers.
As you rightly point out, you have to have other goods, like salads; a labor force; and concepts like supply chains from which cheeseburger suppliers get their resources, before you can even begin to think about what will happen in an economy when you add more dollars.
And then you need a better way to measure the effects than just using dollars. They’re one of your variables.
I’m not remotely denying that adding dollars to the economy is inflationary, by the way! I’m just unimpressed by simple models that have little explanatory value and lead to bad thinking.
> you can't really "ramp up" production of burgers in response to higher dollar supply without ramping down the production of salads, unless there were people doing nothing to start with (which is why inflation is related to unemployment, to a degree)
Yes I agree inflation can be related to unemployment, and I generally agree with your whole point but I just want to clarify you’re missing one big variable in the formula: Automation.
Cheeseburger Supply = Labor*Automation
As such (like we have today with accelerating automation) we don’t really need more labor to make both Cheeseburgers and Salad.
> those dollars used to incentivize higher production can at best drive a short-term boost in production, as the costs to produce the burgers quickly rise as inflation propagates throughout the rest of their supply chain
Additionally, I want to point out Wage Inflation incentivizes Automation. As such even the production cost increase is a short/mid term concern as long as we can Automate more of the process (e.g. lab grown meat, Beyond Burger, farming automation, online ordering vs in-person ordering, etc).
I don’t think any of this is insightful or will change your mind on anything, but do factor Automation and Accelerating Automation into your equations about the economy.
For example, you can't really "ramp up" production of burgers in response to higher dollar supply without ramping down the production of salads, unless there were people doing nothing to start with (which is why inflation is related to unemployment, to a degree). But by the same token, those dollars used to incentivize higher production can at best drive a short-term boost in production, as the costs to produce the burgers quickly rise as inflation propagates throughout the rest of their supply chain and the real value returns to where it was. Meanwhile, the expenses for everyone have increased and people who save money or don't want to hop jobs to get an inflation raise have been punished.