It is impossible to force the economic development of society by artificially encouraging investment and initially financing it with credit expansion. This policy can only have benefits if economic actors also elect to begin saving more at the same time.
It's not really true that governments can always just print money to pay off their debts.
Since the government is not a wealth generating entity, how can an increase in government outlays revive the economy?
With cryptocurrencies, currency competition in the spirit of Hayek has become possible even in the absence of self-limitation by governments.
Under an inflationary monetary scheme, big financial-sector players who get the new money first benefit the most. Ordinary households down the line then bear the brunt of price inflation.
In a world of rampant central bank intervention and endless government regulation, some are still claiming we live in a world of "hypercapitalism."
Emerging-market currencies often suffer a as a result of their government's own profligacy. But the US is also actively trying to destabilize some currencies, and setting up a conflict that the US could ultimately lose.
With printing of the Continental notes in 1775, Webster feared people would think you could finance the Revolutionary War by printing paper money. We should have listened!
It is not possible to generate something out of nothing as suggested by Keynes and his many followers.
Historical experience does not appear to support the thesis of modern fractional-reserve free-banking theorists.
