Sorry, but "all else equal" doesn't, and can never, exist. Any way to expand M2 itself changes the velocity of money, inflation expectations, and (probably most importantly) the expected future value of the US economy.

Your claim was:

> It's a drop relative to what it would be if the money supply had not increased accordingly

If the money supply hadn't increased, those secondary effects would not have happened, so any idea that M2 maps linearly to inflation net unrelated climate effects is just incorrect. If you still believe it's true after that explanation, please back the claim with some actual information.