If the past 2 decades haven't blown the "deficit/inflation" correlation myth out of the water, just wait until the US goes all Japan and turns up the printers even more and have absolutely nothing of consequence happen to it (especially considering the US is even more isolated from raw resource allocation cuz of all the sheer size and diversity of the economy).
Simply the evolution of the economic output moving from manufacturing driven to what it is now makes the comparison a little less jarring.
It flips the inference the author of that website is pushing on its head if you consider what those numbers are actually indicating with the context of what the definition is. Maybe it means the "Volume of input" has been greatly improved because of technological assistance, maybe it means human elements contributing to economic input have more help from advancement in sciences, maybe there are a lot more complex factors at play here than what we are aware of.
tl;dr: "Productivity" in economics is not the intuitive sense of "productivity" the word in common English usage that indicates human work.
This site goes into more detail on how productivity as shown on the famous chart is useless for telling you anything useful and worse means something different from the layman understanding of the word. With charts and basic maths.
If the past 2 decades haven't blown the "deficit/inflation" correlation myth out of the water, just wait until the US goes all Japan and turns up the printers even more and have absolutely nothing of consequence happen to it (especially considering the US is even more isolated from raw resource allocation cuz of all the sheer size and diversity of the economy).