Printing money, and putting it into circulation, in values that exceed economic growth always results in inflation.
Inflation is trivial to cause. Deflation takes a bit more work and discipline, and is subject to the requirement that economic growth exceed increase in money supply - but the method behind it is well understood.
The challenge is to keep your inflation at a low, reasonable level - say 3-5%. I don't think anybody has figured out a repeatable method to do that.
It is trivial to cause inflation, but central banks are either not allowed or ideologically opposed to effective means of putting money in circulation. Many central banks have printed enormous amounts of money and inflated the currency less than they would like to because they're buying second-hand bonds with the printed money. They've been really frustrated with the inefficiency of this, which I find amusing and slightly suspicious. Just printing money and giving it away doesn't necessarily cause short-term inflation. The way in which it is done is the key.
I absolutely guarantee you that if the US government just started cranking out a tax return to its citizens, inflation would return with great efficiency.
Which of the three do you think doesn't hold up empirically?
That we can cause inflation at will (pretty much universally agreed); that we can cause deflation with a bit of discipline/rigor (the mechanism for this is well understood as well); or that we are unable to reliably maintain a persistent low positive inflation rate (There is a Nobel prize for you if you have a guaranteed formula for that).
Inflation is trivial to cause. Deflation takes a bit more work and discipline, and is subject to the requirement that economic growth exceed increase in money supply - but the method behind it is well understood.
The challenge is to keep your inflation at a low, reasonable level - say 3-5%. I don't think anybody has figured out a repeatable method to do that.