Say the value of a pencil is $1. And the fed adds 10% to the money supply. The price of a pencil just goes up to $1.10.
That assumes the demand for money remains constant.
During and after the financial crisis, demand for money spiked.
I don't know what that means
You can't look at money supply and ignore money demand.
If the Fed adds 10% to the money supply but demand for money rises 11%, prices would drop about 1%.
why would demand for money go up if no economic value is created?
Because of shenanigans that folks like Toddster and Indeependent support. That is why they won't explain it to you.
When the leeches of society are allowed to gain wealth off the backs of the producers, corruption sets in.
Why do you think the Christ threw the money changers out of the temple? It is the only time he was every reported to have gotten angry. The is why Rome colluded with the French State to do away with the fee based banking of the Templars and replace it with Fractional Reserve Banking. It's much easier to manipulate and corrupt.
We don't know when the next Fri. 13 (Bust) will come, but they are always guaranteed. The system ALWAYS has to correct itself. When it does, people will suffer and die.
Who cares if the powerful and rich stay in control though, right?
When the wealth disappears, the demand for the creation of new money and new debt is always there.
Here's a good example.
Where did all the money go?
As Cypriots are discovering, wealth can prove to be illusory
http://www.economist.com/news/finan...ng-wealth-can-prove-be-illusory-where-did-all
"High house or share prices, relative to personal incomes or profits, represent a bet that the good times will continue, and that incomes and profits (and cashflows in the form of dividends or rents) will rise significantly in future. When that bet proves wrong, the wealth disappears.
Now to the banks. When a customer deposits money, a bank must do something with it: buy assets or lend it to businesses. That is the banking system’s economic function; it transforms short-term liabilities (deposits that can be instantly withdrawn) into longer-term loans. Banks have always been at risk of two things: that the loans will not be repaid, and that customers will want to withdraw their deposits faster than the bank can turn its assets into cash. Until the 1930s bank failures, and the resulting losses to depositors, were a recurring problem.
Depositing money in a bank therefore amounts to a bet that the bank will lend its money wisely, or that the economy will be strong enough for bank loans to be repaid, and that confidence in the banking system will be maintained. In the modern era bank customers have tended to regard this risk as negligible, thanks to a combination of deposit insurance and governments’ willingness to rescue failing banks. But in many countries the banking sector has grown so large, relative to the economy, that few governments could plausibly guarantee all their system’s deposits. In such circumstances bank customers, particularly uninsured depositors, are in effect relying on the governments of other countries to bail them out in times of trouble—a risky proposition."
I'm already dreading the collapse of the big four big banks. There is no conceivable way to bail them out. I think Trump is already planning on ways to try to save the system. . . 
I'm more than sure it involved some jack-booted thugs on the streets. But then, I'm not sure Hillary's will be much different, but her scheme will probably involve replacing it with a globalist scheme that they have been planning since day one.
The REAL solution, which I think Ron Paul, and a few others were maybe hinting at, is because the world economy has grow so large, and so complex, a better way needs to be found. Unfortunately, there are too many powerful interests that benefit from the way things are set up now that are resistant to change.
And why do they want to take all of society down with them?
