You are missing the point of my objection. An article that is based on faulty statistics is, itself, faulty.
There is still a good bit of hand-wringing over "income in-equality" in this article. First of all, income in-equality is NOT a bad thing. It is a very good thing. It means that people within our society are producing a great amount of wealth that is shared through incomes and amenities for all. Don't forget to factor in income mobility when you look at these statistics.
Secondly, the "gap" that is so worrisome to the left and - according to this article - this guy, too, is heavily exaggerated by the BS statistics of Saez. Using better methods, the "gap" shrinks considerably for the 95% and the top 5% is explained (largely) by income source and reporting changes.
Finally, this guy ties all the ups and downs to the indexed dollar (or lack there of). I'm not sure that is the sole contributor. Lefties try this same tactic with tax rates e.g. "The tax rates were higher under Clinton and the economy did better, therefore we should raise taxes." Neither argument is fully correct.
I have not fully wrapped my head around the pros and cons of an indexed dollar versus a floating dollar, but I am fairly sure the decimation of Europe post-war was as much a factor in that period's growth as was the gold standard, that out of control social policy Johnson through Carter was as much a part of the decline he attributes to Nixion taking us off the gold standard, the pro-growth policies and internet expansion was a strong driver in Reagan through Clinton and 9/11 and the housing bubble (among many other things) was a large part of post 2000 problems. To pin so much of it to monetery policy seems too narrow.
But we’d still only have the same $3,000,000 wampum in circulation. Wampum would be 4 times as scarce as they were 100 years ago. The total wampum would only be about 3% of total national net worth.
It would be much more difficult to get one’s hands on actual wampum (not wampum “on account”, but wampum) after all that wealth accumulation, even though the average person still had the same net worth.
That's a very good example of a hypothetical society on which to base an economic discussion. Some use Robinson Crusoe -- I tend to use a tribe of primitives in my examples [white primitives, of course, wouldn't want to offend anyone].
But if the net worth of the society [or even just the spending] increases while the money supply remains constant, then prices for goods will drop. It is exactly what happened in the late 19th century when the U.S. participated in the international gold standard.
The output of an economy will adjust to the supply of money. Prices will vary accordingly. The supply of money under the gold standard was constrained by the supply of gold reserves and prices dropped by approximately 1% a year for several decades.
And output rose and the standard of living increased and wealth skyrocketed. A limited supply of money is no constraint on growth -- it's just a constraint on prices. They're not the same.