Think of a simple example and it will help illustrate why the statment "strongest money is not elastic" is maybe not the right way to go.

A community of 10 people have 50 coins in circulation so they can use them as a medium of exchange between other members within the group for goods and services (i.e. closed economy).

These 50 coins have a perceived value as defined by the relative basket of goods and services each coin can procure.

The coins themselves are basically worthless intrinsically, but they have value in that they are mutually agreed to as a medium of exchange between the 10 citizens.

Over time the population of 10 people now grows to 50 (through normal birth and immigration activities).  At this point in time there are still 50 coins in circulation, but there are not enough of them to transact normal business activity and thus their percieved value increases as they are now a scarce resource.  This increase in perceived value of the coin doesn't really reflect an increase in the true value of the goods and services produced by the citizens, but merely an increase in the demand for the coin (which isn't really a good or service that adds value to the economy).  

This warped scarcity now drives volatility in the overall normal flow of business activity and can cause some businesses to fail in the short term and eventually nearly all to stall out if there aren't enough coins to do the transactions required for business.

If instead there was an autonomous computer that continuously monitored the supply of coins relative to the overall demand for them and instantly deposited the newly created supply into each citizen's wallet at a proportional and fair value relative to their existing holdings then the net effect would be a zero increase in inflation since all holders increased their holdings at the same level as before the increase.  However, the new supply now enables businesses to continue operating and growing at optimal levels.