Yes, because there’s a trade off. Either the growth rate of the money supply has to be reduced, which would impoverish many politically connected actors, or the value of money will fall at a higher rate causing populist unrest. Either way the stock of money’s value is determined by the amount of goods that stock can acquire.

Over levered risk built on cheap money was a huge driver of inflation. They need to let those bets fail to let the money drain out of the system. But they won’t. This would have been a deflationary event.

Destruction is different to inflation.

inflation weakens it, waters it down. Destruction is when it fails..

inflation can and probably will lead to destruction. but a bank failing not not being propped up like during the GFC is destruction.

Arguably, they should have let those banks fail. instead this inflation is a direct result of that propping up (plus a bunch of other money printing actions)

Money destruction != Value of money destruction

If a thing X goes down in number, the value of X increases.