But here’s the thing: that chart doesn’t show debasement. It only reflects inflation, a well-understood and largely expected outcome in a growing economy. Prices rise over time because demand increases due to population growth, rising incomes, and growing consumption. This is especially true in a post-industrial, service-driven economy that incentivizes credit expansion and capital investment. In other words, it’s not the dollar losing value; it’s the economy expanding.

I have pointed out before that "debasement" is a weird concept to apply to a fiat currency, so I don't mind the author pushing back on that specific term. The debasement happened when they depegged from gold. Since then, there is no base to the currency units, so there's nothing to debase.

The other point doesn't explain why demand for money didn't increase in proportion to demand for everything else. In fact, it's not clear that a growing economy should see demand for goods and services outpacing supply at all. The evidence we have from growing economies during the gold standard era suggests the opposite.

Since I already disagree with what seems to be his central point, I probably won't wade any further into this.