No, during my MBA program in which I took a finance emphasis, they neglected to cover basic economic concepts.
Sarcasm aside, I don't claim to be an economist, but I have a general grasp of how money supply can affect prices.
I am essentially arguing that supply of basic resources is highly elastic and that therefore any change in demand for resources driven by increases in money supply would not have a very large increase in price and therefore would not be likely to affect people's ability to rebuild.
In addition, in this case the growth in gold appears to have stayed concentrated in a fairly limited number of hands.
Given a higher concentration of wealth, it seems likely that the effects of inflation would be felt more in the market for discretionary goods, such as advanced harvestables, crafted items, etc., for which supply is more inelastic, and not so much in the market for commodities, since the supply of those commodities is elastic.
Commodities by their nature have a low income elasticity of demand -- people will tend to prioritize rebuilding their cities over other activities such as the above. Therefore an increase in income would tend to have less effect on the demand for basic resources than for luxury goods, as described above.
In addition, based on the description the developers have given regarding the ways in which a great deal of the increased money supply was used, a lot of it did not enter the economic system, but rather was deposited in alliance inventories or used to purchase prestige scrolls. Or in some cases, simply sat in players' accounts. This in many ways could be seen to parallel the economic recovery from the most recent recession, in which in spite of relatively "easy money" policies the people who had the money did not "spend" it (such as by banks making loans in the case of the U.S. or by players buying things in Illy). The result in the United States was a period of low inflation in spite of "easy money" policies. A similar situation seems to have occurred in Illy.
Given that I have an understanding of elasticity, do you see it being relevant to this situation in a way other than the one I've described?
Your argument for an observable economic effect is speculative at best, and any attempt to link it to war is utterly specious.