As a blanket presumption, that's dumb and you know it.

I think you're confusing "presumption" with "categorial principle" or "axiom" or something. A presumption can be overridden, given sufficient evidence; my question was whether or how strongly EY takes a presumption against it. If you agree with the concept of criminalizing counterfeiting, you agree with that presumption.

Certainly printing money is a near costless way to solve economic problems at some times otherwise we wouldn't use money at all.

Does not follow. Not all moneys arose in a Pareto-optimal fashion, so their use not evidence printing money being costless.