>And it would be kind of hard to measure the presence of even several
>bladdersful of Sawicky pee in Lake Erie. Which is another way of
>saying that while the government can create money out of thin air,
>its prospects for doing so are quite limited if you want the money to
>retain any value.
"quite limited" is overexaggerated I think. One need not accept any of the more severe 'neo-chartalist' claims ('taxes-drives'money' view, no limit to national debt or even debt-gdp ratios, taxes and bond sales never finance government spending, etc.) to recognize that *under certain conditions* government can spend in a way that produces significant effects on the economy (decreases unemployment, expands income, increases social services) without it being inflationary. "Under certain conditions" also happen to be those conditions where such spending would be desirable (when there is higher unemployment, slower economy). If we go a step further and recognize that moderate inflation is not a big problem (or is worth the trade-off), then spending could be increased even more. Mat