The way I understand it (and this is not my area of expertise), this view could have been cutting-edge 50-100 years ago, but now it’s not really sophisticated enough.
The numbers I see (asset prices and monetary base both going up and up and nothing but up) are in sync with my view.
Burden of proof doesn't mean it default to "you're wrong." It means it defaults to "your position is unfounded." To change it to "you're wrong" requires evidence of your own.
In the context of an argument, this is the same as wrong. You can't use evidence to refute an unfounded argument; there are no supports to attack.
Of course OPs statement is arguably one that is able to be disproven, or at least evidence towards disproving it. Unfortunately, the person claiming it was not sophisticated enough failed to provide that evidence. So in my book, they both made unfounded statements.
Couldn't you have easily proved yourself wrong?
edit: the date was chosen because of today's date, picking the year before the housing bubble burst as a start, then taking a 10 year period.
From 20007 to 2017, prices of pretty much everything I look at doubled. Shares, gold, coffee (when you order it in a cafe), real estate ...
Money lost half of its buying power and you tell me inflation went up by only 1.75%?
One of the ideas kicking around is that there is so much extra low-interest money kicking around that people snapped up real estate with bidding wars, perhaps as an inflation hedge. That one makes sense to me. But discounting the price of real estate through taxation disincentives doesn't make sense, because the one paying the tax is ultimately the property owner(s). So the owner is still paying the price, only now he's splitting the payment check to two entities: he's paying (1) the previous owner and (2)a rent-seeking tax machine enforced by men with guns. Any cost savings would effectively be by turning it into a hybrid ownership, hybrid open ended lease with society being the part owner, and thus could be considered a cheapened form of ownership rather than the same thing for better value.
In effect, LVT is saying "land is cheaper... if you're only buying N% of it and society owns the rest." Well of course it's true... but remember you're paying your rent-seeking landlord (government) your annual lease payment on their (100-N)% ownership. Move N to 0, and you now don't have to spend anything on the land, but everyone is a serf to government ownership of land. In effect, LVT is fractional communism of the land, with extremes of N=100% being full individual property rights and N=0% being full communism.
That is an unsophisticated view. Lowering inflation by 'changing the definition' is like trying to lose weight by switching from pounds to kilos. The measurement is not the thing being measured. Do politicians play around with highlighting different measures? Of course they do - but that is a (ineffective) solution to a political problem not an economic one.
Lots of money in Japan, no inflation: