Check your assumptions.  From the article you linked:<p>"Velocity of money is often assumed to be constant, and the real value of output is determined in the long run by the productive capacity of the economy. Under these assumptions, the primary driver of the change in the general price level is changes in the quantity of money."<p>Monetarists never claim that inflation is <i>always and everywhere</i> a monetary phenomena unless they're dumbing things down for the press.  They claim that <i>in the long run</i> it's a monetary phenomena.  There's still room in the monetarist model for short-term supply spikes like the OPEC oil crises of 1973 and 1979 that the grandparent poster alludes to.<p>I'd also take issue with your statement that "you should be listening more to the Monetarists like Friedman, rather than to Keynes."  They are not diametrically opposed.  Friedman accepted Keynes; in fact, one of the reasons that monetarism was successful was because Friedman was one of the first people to accept Keynes on his own terms and <i>then</i> point out situations where Keynesian economics was unable to explain the observed data.  Monetarism should be viewed as a refinement of Keynesianism, not a replacement.