The article's entire thrust seems to rest on two points:

On the first point, he's not wrong. But just because natural demand growth can lead to higher prices doesn't mean debasement isn't also at work. He didn't offer any compelling breakdown of how much of inflation was due to natural demand factors outpacing supply, and how much was due to increases in nominal demand from monetary debasement. I'd argue that the amount of inflation would have been much lower without monetary debasement. He didn't disprove that case.

Furthermore, in a naturally growing economy, both demand and supply expand. Supply expands due to growing productivity and resource availability, which is what to expect in a naturally expanding economy. Debasement, on the other hand, increases nominal demand without any of that naturally occurring supply expansion. So to me, it's actually more plausible that more of the currency devaluation has been from debasement than from natural economic expansion.

On the second point, he makes three supporting arguments:

On point 1, I don't think this is a good argument because people who are alarmed about debasement aren't just alarmed about US debasement, they're alarmed about global monetary debasement.

On point 2, you can't deny that we've been in a persistently high outlier state since the 2008 financial crisis. I think that's what's got people worried. It's nice that things are coming down a bit, but it's still super high historically and there's no guarantee it'll keep coming down.

On point 3, I don't find this compelling. Stocks are holdings in companies that own real assets, so you'd expect their price to go up in a monetary debasement regime just like you'd expect the price of real estate and gold and bitcoin to all go up. So showing that one asset class outperformed another doesn't say much about debasement to me.

Aren't 8-10% more dollars added per year? And if that number is so much higher than CPI, doesn't that imply that if we weren't adding dollars, prices would be falling? What do you call the difference between these numbers?

The articles narrative is that fiat money is good and if you believe that then you also accept the debt that goes with fiat. He says fiat money cannot be debased(because it is not backed by gold or any fixed asset), which is BS because in fact fiat money can be debased the most easily of all forms of money as it depends more upon the monopoly fiat has over MoE. The USD has a near monopoly over global trade payments and dominates global financial markets- so gold and most trade commodities are priced in dollars. But this global dominance of the dollar is more fragile than it might appear to a fiat fan- the USD global; hegemony depends upon the dominance of global institutions and markets- SWIFT, IMF. World Bank, Wall st etc. However the US dominance of these markets was built when the US dominated global manufacturing and trade- today the US does not dominate in manufacturing and commodity markets- China does. Chinas dislike of the dominance of the USD is no secret- China has been building its alternatives to the USD/SWIFT/petrodollar hegemony. Today most trade done by Russia, N.Korea and Iran is denominated in Yuan. China leads the mBridge digital trade payments protocol which includes partners Thailand, UAE and Hong Kong and recently added Saudi Arabia to its grouping. The USD is highly vulnerable to declining dominance- it is already happening and the data from BIS, IMF and World Bank simply does not include the rapidly growing trade payments and volumes being enabled via Chinas alternative protocols to USD/SWIFT such as CIPS and mBridge. A fiat believer accepts debt and debt in the west has been growing rapidly since the gold backing of the USD was dropped and USD went full fiat. The viability of the US empire is now dependent upon continued funding of serial fiscal deficits via sale of USTs- and global demand for UST is dropping as China, India and others accumulate gold and decrease their holdings of USTs. Fiat money is a powerful economic stimulant but it carries significant risks if debt reaches significant levels and the finance issued via fiat money is not directed into productive assets- this is exactly what has happened across the western world since neoliberal deregulation removed any restriction upon the purpose to which commercial banks issue fiat debt funding. Since neoliberal reforms the ratio of fiat funding of non productive speculative purposes has skyrocketed and conversely investment in productive assets and infrastructure has rapidly declined. Housing has become the defacto SoV for the masses who can afford to fund a mortgage. A massive misuse of fiat debt funding results in inflated housing costs and much reduced international competitiveness. Fiat money is financial stimulant and can keep the empire going a little longer but the fundamentals have been substantially undermined since the gold peg was abandoned.