I think you misread Block’s argument. He definitely was not suggesting that all additions to the money supply confer a social benefit.
This is true of non-commodity money that has no non-monetary use, because these will dilute purchasing power without increasing transactional efficiency. This does not require law to prevent such increases. The market will simply choose a more preferable money. …of course, if it comes about because it is claimed to represent ownership of gold, but the underlying gold is insufficient, this is fraud and should be legally prohibited.
It is especially true of fiat currency, of which government controls the supply as well as subsidizes its demand as money through legal tender, tax payment, and other laws. Here not only is the market unable to use the money cost-effectively in a non-monetary use; but it is hampered from choosing alternatives.
He simply said the free market would regulate the supply of money to be most efficient in carrying out transactions.
But he should also mention that the free market may select among all commodities which is to serve as money. Being that retaining purchasing power seems to be a universally favored quality of money, it makes sense for the market to select a commodity whose existing supply is sufficient to conduct efficient transactions but whose future supply will not be so radically larger as to dilute purchasing power. Thus, while additions to commodity Y may confer social benefit, they may also cause commodity X to replace commodity Y as the standard money.
No, that is why I wrote inface of demand. Max and I never suggested that any and all increase of the money supply is good. I just made the same point as Block and Barnett. Juan can ridicule the needs of trade, or whatever he calls it, all he wants, but ridicule is not a valid critique.
Which is fine. I never said that the price level should continuously rise, not even that should always stay constant. A growing economy would reduce prices in the long run. And if there is a sudden influx of a commodity then another can simply be chosen as currency instead.
If my time preference is such that I am indifferent between having something right now or one second later than that is the individual time preference. My point is that with humans small differences in time may fit the theoretical distinction but have no practical effect on human behavior. That is the point.
So if your theory is designed for real people and not some imaginary person then you have to observe what people actually do not just what you would like them to do.