The simple fact is that Coolidge is by far the most "labor-protectionist" president in the entire history of the United States in terms of new policy he implemented (extremely restrictive immigration laws), and there was no hyperinflation.
Restrictive immigration laws =/= the deportation of illegal immigrants currently in the nation. There's no reason to expect that inflation would skyrocket overnight if the flow of immigration were stopped. What causes inflation with regards to immigration policy is when current immigrants are evicted from the country. That's why the late 1950s saw relatively high inflation coupled with the slowdown of Eisenhower's second term: he didn't merely limit himself to imposing immigration quotas, but he began actively evicting illegal Mexican immigrants back to Mexico. It ought to be no surprise that, if one looks at a chart of inflation during the 1950s, it begins a slow and steady rise in 1954 and does not drop for the rest of the decade.
In other words: you're intentionally conflating two things to score rhetorical points. The reason you feel the need to do this is because you cannot otherwise intellectually rationalize, on the one hand, the "minarchism" of your favored candidate and, on the other, his commitment to seeing greater State intervention within the sphere of immigration.
In fact, this is untrue. If we exclude the 1929 crisis, inflation in America during the 1920s peaked in 1927 under Coolidge.
Nonsense. Monetary policy is a tool which responds to political and economic needs; it's not something that comes ex nihilo like so many Hayekian utopianists believe. Any increase in the money supply leads to inflation.
When you evict Mexicans who work for low pay and thus artificially and arbitrarily increase wages, you have increased the money supply. When you evict Mexicans who often send money back home to recompense their families, you have increased the money supply. Both lead to inflation.
You are, quite literally, living in Austrian fantasyland.
Too bored to go point by point on this so here's my quick bullet point analysis.
Inflation declined from 1954 to 1955, and while it did rise in 1956 and 1957, it declined in 1958 and 1959. During the decade, inflation was by far the highest in 1951, when it was 7.88%. That was because of the Truman Fed opening up the floodgates in order to hide the cost of the Korean War. Ike put a lid on that.
Inflation was -1.92% in 1927, which is, in fact,
deflation. The highest inflation seen in the 1920s was in 1920, when it was 15.90% under wacko Wilson.
(
source for inflation numbers)
Furthermore, Hoover deported even more illegal immigrants than Ike did and there was massive
deflation under his term. Even if you were right about the 1950s inflation numbers, and you are wrong (as with your earlier discussion with Carl, you are simply making sh!t up), one might just as easily say that "labor-protectionism" leads to deflation, and cite Hoover as an example.
I also enjoyed your protectionist reasoning vis-a-vis remittances. The total supply of dollars does not change whether they are in the US or Canada or Mexico or Uruguay or Antarctica. International gifts of dollars have no effect on the total dollar supply and therefore no effect on the dollar's value. Even if your protectionist reasoning weren't totally fallacious, the record amount of remittances to Mexico was in 2007, $26 billion. That's about one day's worth of Federal Reserve banker pocket-stuffing. That's about 0.2% of the present M2 money supply of about $9 trillion, to use a more concrete example. That does not even approach meaningful statistical significance.
