The point is printing physical dollars is only a tiny component of inflation (basically zero impact) since the amount of physical dollars only reflects a portion of the total dollars in the US economy. Most of it is digital with no physical representation.
And that's not keynesian monetary policy. It's how inflation is measured.
Respectfully, you don't know what you are talking about.
I apologize. I forgot about the second half of my post that didn't show up until I hit expand.
I mean it's not exactly keynesian. Keynesian monetary policy will try to peg and control interest rates but pegging and controlling interest rates is not necessarily keynesian. We do unfortunately have a new keynesian approach to monetary policy, but again that is not really my point.
But you are correct again that an effect of having inflation is that it typically increases income and wealth inequality because wage increases lag in response to price increases and lower income workers tend to get pushed out of the investment class, where you benefit from steady inflation.
That said, stepping back, the question is "would those low income earners be better or worse off in terms of real dollars, or more specifically ppp, if you try to maximize GDP (generally the goal of most macroeconomic policy) or if you try to minimize income inequality (an alturistic short-term goal and arguably a better policy for long-term gdp maximization because it stabilizes with less social discontent). That's were the theories diverge because you can't really measure it empirically without a lot more data than we have. You would almost need a parallel universe and then see where each is at in 100 years.
Anyway. I think we kinda agree.
But printing physical dollars doesn't cause inflation
