The childs‘s question „why don‘t we just print more mone for everybody“ isn’t far off what many adults reckon is a decent idea. Beneath complex economic jargon, it feels like something we could manage, right?

To grasp a concept, starting from first principles is usually wise.

Joe Bryan's brilliant "What's The Problem?" (watch here or see here on X) unpacks basic economics, wrapped in a simple tale of island survivors (simple as a praise - a way of clear thinking). One group locks their money’s rules; the other adds a “Big Red Button” to print more. When the first crisis strikes, the printer hit chaos - rising costs, lost trust - while the locked side prospers.

Why is that? Inflation from a first principle is simple: if more money floods in but goods and services stagnate, prices rise - money’s value dips.

It splits into three forms: Price inflation stings - goods cost more, shrink (90-gramme bars, not 100), or decrease in quality (industrial sludge over fresh food). Asset inflation lifts stocks and homes, favouring owners whilst others fall behind.

Finally, the money printer skews competition via the Cantillon effect - new cash hits first where power lies. Big, government-close firms get flushed first with funds as banks extend loans, expanding the money supply, before smaller players see a cent. The nearer you are to the money printer (or the state grants), the easier to snatch labour, material and other resources. Smaller firms or individuals lag, outpriced and outmanoeuvred.

Printing’s addictive: easy to start, near impossible to stop. Each new crisis gives politicians a new excuse to crank up debt and money supply, a "painless" fix for their voters. Voters hate cuts; banks and media thrive on it, Big Pharma, Big Food and others demand closer ties to governmental subsidies. So, it spirals in one direction - towards ever more printing, ever bigger distortions.

Joe’s money printing tribe is eerily close to what one can observe in our societies at the moment, isn’t it?