> I'm having trouble parsing the fundamental difference between Brad
> Delong's $500B platinum coin, Bernanke's "computer keystroke" funding
> of QE 1, 2 and soon to be 3 and the Chartalist/MMT concept of money =
> points. Doesn't this put to rest the notion that Treasury needs to
> borrow funds to deficit spend - other than the statutory requirement,
> of couse? Could someone point me to a clarification?
I don't really see the discrepancy you're trying to explain. I doubt DeLong or Bernanke would dispute the MMT argument that, absent legal constraints, Treasury *could* spend without issuing bonds.