So when give examples of socialism working, you use the same "not a true scotsman" fallacy you accuse socialists of using to disregard negative examples of socialism. Could it be that there is a lot of nuance on the spectrum between all out socialism and all out capitalism?
1. Nope we've been through this. Governments with sovereign currency already have that currency.
2,3. The economy is not running at full steam. There are massive amounts of unemployed and underemployed persons who could be producing more goods and services. We have idle resources that aren't benefiting anyone.
The usual goals of monetary policy are to achieve or maintain full employment, to achieve or maintain a high rate of economic growth
I think this link may help you with monetary policy. I admit I am not explaining it well enough on here.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111414/how-can-inflation-be-good-economy.asp4. If the working class earned their fair share, you would have more of the money going to more people and get more spending out of that portion of the population who still have a lot left to buy.
That is not an example of Socialism let alone Socialism working. Really? Now you are resorting to refractively using logical fallacies as a cudgel? You don't even know what a "no true Scotsman" fallacy is, stop pretending like you do you are just making yourself look stupid using it incorrectly.
Could it be that you rely on this endless Postmodernist "nuance" to weasel your way out of any position and define Socialism however it suits you fort any given argument?
1. Yeah, we have been through this. Printing money is stealing buying power from current money holders. You can pretend it doesn't but this is a mathematical fact which is a direct result of the fact resources are finite no matter how much money you print.
2,3. Running at full steam? Sounds very scientific. I love that you think "investopedia" would ever present a good argument for Socialism. However in the mental gymnasium that is your mind, and doing backflips to and contortions reach a conclusion is standard, I would suppose these things are not contradictory in your mind.
A paragraph on "possible benefits of inflation" (IE theory), is in no way supportive of your insane handout policies that would destroy the economy. No, you don't seem to explain anything well. You claim to be an educator? No wonder our children are performing so poorly.
4. This is nothing more than your opinion with zero basis in fact. "get more spending out of the population" What? Do you really think productivity stems from consumption, and you have the nerve to lecture me on my "simplistic views on economics"?