It's interesting that they didn't rely more on state-of-the-art design and printing process technology, to make a poor-quality fake more difficult to pass off.
>Dismissed by some as Monopoly or plastic money, the new £5 and £10 notes in particular have come in for heavy criticism.
It's a common metaphor, but it's just a simpleminded metaphor. The US Treasury printing has literally nothing to do with inflation (if it's printing adequate amounts of replacement bills). No US government account is paid with fresh bills, hot from the Treasury presses. Those unwrinkled notes are sent to replace damaged bills returned from banks at a strict 1:1 rate.
Instead, money is created by issuing bonds (via the interest paid). The possibility of creating inflation is still present, but no printing presses are involved (Treasury nor otherwise).
Also, the exact process by which governments create money out of nothing (directly printing it, issuing bonds, changing the materials used for coins, changing numbers in a database, etc.) doesn't really matter, does it?
His theory is that governments have a debt cycle, and printing money is just one point in that cycle.
The first part of "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith gives many historical examples.
And in Ray Dalio's book, he explains how the US government did it in the past, and will need to do it again in the future.
My point is: The printing of physical (fiat) bills are completely independent of increasing monetary supply. Always true in the US; probably always true in most instances.