I don’t know if other economists have tried proving this but here is my best shot.
Lets assume that the theory is true. Advocates of increasing the money supply say that trade cant be conducted without an expansion of money.
Therefore you have to print money when there is more trade. But wait a minute, for advocates of this theory to print more money they have to FIRST see an increase in trade. But this contradicts their original proposition that trade can’t be facilaited without an expansion of the money supply. For it just did right in front of thier eyes.
the only other option is to print money pre-emptively, and that is palin wrong.
I hope people undrstand what I’m trying to communicate.
This is no big deal. Any amount of money can adapt to any amount of goods. Since Im just a journalist student, I cant give you some complex examples, but try to imagine to the whole economy being represented by a certain amount of money, then the economy turns more productive (produces more stuff, cheaper), so this amount of money gained value, every unity of money has more purchasing power.
Lame example by me: If the economy is 20 cakes and there are 80 dollars in circulation, 4 dollars per cake, then the cake production doubles, 40 cakes, so 2 dollars per cake. So some keynesian tells to double the money supply, so now we have 160 dollars and now the cake costs 4 dollars again. it wont make people any wealthier, afterall all 80/2 = 160/4.