"Sure, maybe after 4 years of issues things just happened to naturally get better right when the federal government carried out a targeted intervention."
It seems possible that the story is more complicated than that.
"But the purpose of a currency is denominating prices and debts, so it does matter."
I don't think currencies can change the value of things, so I am not convinced the denomination aspect is really the most important aspect of what currencies do.
"Economic activity is for the most part predicated on some concept of property rights, which are a legal construct and thus predicated on the existence of a government and its monopoly on the use of force."
That seems obviously false. Animals have territories, and they don't have governments. It requires use of force, but that doesn't require governments. Just because governments tend to monopolize use of force, doesn't imply they are required for enforcing property "rights".
"The argument isn’t that paying people to dig holes and fill them back in (or build warships and sink them in the ocean) creates economic value, only that it creates demand, which is self-evidently true."
What demand does the hole digging worker create - demand for shovels?
"A negative demand shock can cause an economy to contract to a new lower equilibrium"
I would agree that equilibriums are the right way to look at it, and "pushing to a higher equilibrium" would be what I called "kickstarting" like a motor. Still not convinced that simply distributing money does the trick, though.
"Deficit spending doesn’t expand the money supply if the government has to borrow to spend, it just draws money out of the private sector. Hence we’re back to the gold standard as the root of the problem."
It seems possible that the story is more complicated than that.
"But the purpose of a currency is denominating prices and debts, so it does matter."
I don't think currencies can change the value of things, so I am not convinced the denomination aspect is really the most important aspect of what currencies do.
"Economic activity is for the most part predicated on some concept of property rights, which are a legal construct and thus predicated on the existence of a government and its monopoly on the use of force."
That seems obviously false. Animals have territories, and they don't have governments. It requires use of force, but that doesn't require governments. Just because governments tend to monopolize use of force, doesn't imply they are required for enforcing property "rights".
"The argument isn’t that paying people to dig holes and fill them back in (or build warships and sink them in the ocean) creates economic value, only that it creates demand, which is self-evidently true."
What demand does the hole digging worker create - demand for shovels?
"A negative demand shock can cause an economy to contract to a new lower equilibrium"
I would agree that equilibriums are the right way to look at it, and "pushing to a higher equilibrium" would be what I called "kickstarting" like a motor. Still not convinced that simply distributing money does the trick, though.
"Deficit spending doesn’t expand the money supply if the government has to borrow to spend, it just draws money out of the private sector. Hence we’re back to the gold standard as the root of the problem."
If you assume money supply is the problem.