Would you have a link of the discussion? Very interested!
Dont't know. We had so many threats about the antoninian plague.
I looked at it from my point of view of an economist. A plague is a bad thing. But a plague combined with a big war is a catastrophe!
After a plague you lost a significant part of your population. So your gross national product drops. Consequently the governent should decrease now the volume of money in circulation, in order to avoid an inflation. This is what modern economists would advise.
But Marcus Aurelius was in the middle of the most dangerous war since centuries. He could not reduce the money spent by the government. He had to increase it. Well, Marcus opportunites were limited. Actually he was almost bankrupted. However he put all the money he could get into this war. His son Commodus now even debased the currency and increased the money in circulation. Although the national product was reduced. This had to lead to a significant inflation. Therefore Severus had to increse th salary of the army significantly. And Caraclla did it again. Until we had a hyperinflation during the crisis 235-285 AD.
The roman empire always had a small inflation since Augustus. And some debasements like during Neros reign. But this moderate increase of the money supply was fully ok and even needed, because the economy was growing, too.
Don't get me wrong. I do not blame Commodus. He and his advisors had no clue about economic science. I also do not blame Severus. Well, perhaps we should blame Caracalla a bit. And finally, the crisis was much more than just an inflation.