This is a good analogy for explaining what I'm thinking; but first, are you familiar with how the money supply expands (money is created) through private borrowing (when interest rates fall)?
This article is idiocy! To sell a stock short it must be borrowed first. Margins must be in place or a buy in will occur.
A naked short does not 'borrow' anything. If I was to naked short a stock, I would have the ability to initiate a sell order that is backed by nothing real and tangible. I would just sell into the market and gather the proceeds and disappear. I would never need to borrow.
As to your analogy, you have a skewed point that the federal reserve can increase the money in circulation by creating it out of thin air. But 'the intent' is quite different. It is not intended to defraud rather it is to regulate money supply amongst other things.
A naked short, other than allowed for specialists and market makers, has a criminal intent to defraud companies and investors.
I'm not sure you can equate or otherwise compare the actions of the Federal Reserve to naked shorters.
Naked shorting I believe is also a relatively recent phenomenon in stock exchange history, that is in terms of its broad effects. What I mean is that electronic trading transactions have made it much easier to naked short stocks without a trace. This is why it is important for Congress to address the capital markets as to naked shorting. It is much more prevalent today than at any other point in history because of electronic trading.