You could only say the first premise is off if there were also no tax revenue paying back the loans. To be fair, I left out the possibility of paying with newly borrowed money, which also applies to both cases and defers the ultimate question of where payment is going to come from.

Undisciplined

so the first premise is just off: under fiat (i.e. USA today) 

So, fiat needs taxation to avoid debasement, which I think was my original point.

Even so, that doesn't work/answer OP's question...

econ

Which is Worse: Taxes or Fiat Money?

kepford

so the first premise is just off: under fiat (i.e. USA today) _isn't_ paying with new money. 
- M2 is flat
- Fed balance sheet is shrinking
- and Fed seigniorage revenue to Treasury was always minor (and in the last 3 years has been negative). 

There IS NO MONEY PRINTING FOR BONDS
--- 

https://x.com/joakimbook/status/1982084096701677685 

---

> So, fiat needs taxation to avoid debasement, which I think was my original point.

Even so, that doesn't work/answer OP's question... 

There IS NO MONEY PRINTING FOR BONDSThere IS NO MONEY PRINTING FOR BONDS