[tsbinz]

> We expanded the M1 money supply from $4T to $18T and largely handed it out in a diffuse way.

This is often quoted and either comes out of ignorance or is intentionally misleading. Assuming it's the former, M1 in the US is not a good measure over the time span you are quoting, because there has been an accounting change that significantly expands of what kind of accounts are considered to be in M1.

See the description below the graph of https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL and the notification in https://www.federalreserve.gov/feeds/h6.html#2746 (the item from December 17, 2020 in case the anchor doesn't work properly).

If you want to make arguments about monetary supply in that time period, it's better to use M2.

[inyourtenement]

Agreed, but this is such a red flag that a commenter is not thinking critically. Do they really think we quadrupled the money supply in a short time? And the only effect was 10% inflation? Usually that would disprove all of their other assumptions about the relationship between the money printer and inflation.

[Detrytus]

Yes, M1 money supply did quadruple in a short time, you can see it on one of the FED banks site:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL

Fortunately, the result was "asset inflation", i.e. most of that money went to stock market raising stock prices. That's why consumer goods inflation was so low.