/lit/ - Literature

>>22845285
durrduhh hurrdurr dummmm uhhh i dummmm print money duhhdurrrduhhhh so dummm i cant think good i just print money durrrrr

>>22845285

>>22845291
Something Friedman would not advocate for, of course. Use the Taylor rule and adjust interest rates accordingly.

>>22845293
Of course he did, and he died an angry old man looking out at the destruction he helped cause. He might not have been a keynesian, but if anything he’s worse because at least keynes had the decency to admit he was a retard but it doesn’t matter because he will be dead before it catches up to him.

>>22845296
What destruction did he help cause? Friedman didn't create the Federal Reserve. He created a more efficient Federal Reserve coming out of stagflation and into a world of stable 2% inflation rates. Without the kind of rules based system he advocated for, we'd be experiencing Covid levels of inflation as a norm.

>>22845299
>rules based
That holy cant of the econ-drone. Disregard everything anyone says after hearing those two words.

>>22845306
Do you have anything of substance to say, or are you going to demonstrate intelligence beyond the poor attempt at parody here? >>22845291
I doubt there's a lick of economic literacy to be had in that peanut sized brain of yours if you don't know the relevance Friedman had in controlling inflation.

>>22845310
He literally justified inflation, who the hells cares if he was a lesser evil? He also wanted UBI.

>>22845312
Saying he was the lesser evil is a pretty slick way of conceding that he didn't cause any destruction but prevented it.

I don't buy into the negative income tax. But he advocated for it as a replacement to welfare as it exists while removing welfare cliffs, the idea being that there's more motive to work when working doesn't land you with less.

>>22845285
"The Constitution of Liberty" from von Hayek

>>22845285
>uses neoliberal
ngmi don't even try

>>22845341
>the idea being that there's more motive to work when working doesn't land you with less.
This is exactly the issue with the negative tax, friedman said he thought that welfare being hard to get on was ugly and it should be guaranteed, it would open the floodgates for this exact problem with welfare. Working is less, if the UBI is 30,000 dollars a year and someone is working for 35,000 they might just say hell with working for a measly 5,000 and choose a simpler more leisurely life on the dole. This will cause a cascading problem of the people remaining at work paying more taxes and work being less worth it and more people going on the dole and it will all collapse.

What's the difference between a classical and a neoliberal?

>>22845285
Neoliberalism is a kikecept, it's not actually real. The idea that the late 20th century saw a rise in privatization and austerity is disproven by the fact that every government does more social spending and regulates markets more heavily now than 50 or 100 years ago. The whole idea of this unique "neoliberal" ideology is built on a total lie.

>>22845619
There's a lot of similarity since it's a reaction to the development of communism in the 20th century and the social democrats. Generally they have more updated views on economics though. Marginalism over the labor theory of value being one of the first differences.
>>22846269
The victories were just modest. Politicians that are called neoliberal were still trying to maintain political popularity. That said, you can see the influence of neoliberalism with lowered taxation, reduction of trade barriers, particular industries like the airline industry getting deregulated, anti-trust adopting the consumer welfare standard, or lowered unionization rates.

>>22846300
>That said, you can see the influence of neoliberalism with lowered taxation
That hasn't actually happened anywhere, you got scammed by Piketty. Same with your claim about deregulation; companies have never been more regulated in the West. You can't tell me companies are deregulated when you have entire government industries devoted to making sure said companies practice ethical hiring practices. 50-100 years ago you were free to hire and fire at all, can't do that anywhere in the West today except a few of the most conservative states in the USA.

>>22845619
It is was the Marxist-Leninists who brought the "socialism vs communism" distinction into the language. It was all the same shit beforehand.

>>22846300
>The neoliberalism in question
And you can do this with pretty much any country in Europe too. Pretending that taxes have decreased while government spending unfiormly increrases year after year (with a single of cuts here and there) is trying to square a circle.

>>22845285
>number must go up, always

>>22846309
>>22846318
Use government spending as a percentage of GDP since we need to account for the fact that the tax base has gone up over time.

Also I mentioned in my reply that politicians called neoliberal had to maintain political popularity. By that I meant they were constrained by the fact that a lot of social spending is popular. More than 40% of the budget goes to Medicare and Social Security. 12% goes to the military. Good luck cutting those. In fact, you'll be lucky to keep that spending constant given the aging population.

The tax reforms were still net good. It's better to have lower marginal tax rates and less brackets so high skilled jobs are rewarded. I also mentioned particular victories, not that neoliberals won on every issue. The airline industry did get deregulated and became more efficient as result, we are only recently seeing some erosion of the consumer welfare standard, and unions are still below 10% in the private sector, which means we have a more flexible labor market than we used to.
>>22846325
Yep.

>>22846356
>The tax reforms were still net good. It's better to have lower marginal tax rates and less brackets so high skilled jobs are rewarded.
I don't disagree with the position you're coming from as I'm a supporter of free markets and an enemy of welfare, I simply think the "victories" are largely overstated. A few deregulations in the airline industry as you say is indeed a minor victory when you look at all of the additional regulations that have been put in place. The existence of HR departments, 'equal hiring practices' and additional nonsense is not something I can see as an overall victory; the efficiency that came as a result of those few deregulations is nothing compared to the inefficiencies that have been added on to the system.

I dislike the term "neo"liberalism because I simply see it as the last throes of classical liberalism in a mass-demoratic, progressive system. There's nothing really "neo" about it. Union membership is lower but the federal government does all the work that unions did, and there's really little purpose to be a part of one now, leftists don't need unions now that thye control the levers of government. It's not as if lower union membership has led to less worker protections or an end to socialist nonesense in the workplace, as previously mentioned, all that stuff is done through the government itself now.

Neoliberalism has mostly been discredited though

>>22846423
Yeah that's what I've been trying to say. The entire conception of "neoliberalism" is based on a leftist myth of the devlopment of western economies, and it's best not to give into this conception and adopt their terms. Leftists think the Post-WW2 era was this golden age of social spending and governments looking after the working class, that was all undone by evil Reagan and Thatcher. Meanwhile, in reality, any austerity has been modest and short-term, and has been entirely offset by continual increases in welfare expenditures.

>>22846389
I agree neoliberal victories have been minor, though I wouldn't put the blame on neoliberals as they obviously would have pushed for more given the opportunity.

On net, attempts to quantify how flexible the US labor market is puts us ahead of pretty much any country. Though part of that is that, while the US for example has protected classes, at will employment is exceedingly rare in other countries. In most nations you need a justification to fire people.
>>22846423
How so?
>>22846451
Neoliberalism was a real academic stream of thought prior to leftists deciding that everyone from Thatcher to Obama is a neoliberal. E.g. Friedman with his essay Neoliberalism and its Prospects.

No Mises?

>>22845299
>He created a more efficient Federal Reserve coming out of stagflation and into a world of stable 2% inflation rates.
How? The Fed very briefly tried targeting the "money supply" but quickly gave up when the issues became apparent. Same thing happened in Britain and other places that flirted with "monetarism". Inflation in the 80s was "solved" by companies outsourcing and oil costs falling, not central bankers

>Without the kind of rules based system he advocated for, we'd be experiencing Covid levels of inflation as a norm.
None of Friedman's "rules" were ever adopted (because they can't work) lol

>>22846318
>Pretending that taxes have decreased while government spending unfiormly increrases
Do you know what "supply side economics" is? Republican politicians embraced heterodox ideas on tax cuts in the 1980s based on the idea higher spending wasn't necessarily a problem (Reagans military spending made that necessary) and could be paid for by cutting taxes. See "Laffer Curve" lol. This was something Friedman was actively against and thought that spending cuts/tax hikes were necessary, which was exported to the turd world by the IMF. In practice Reganomics was just a reactionary form of post-Keyensianism. Europe tends to be much more "fiscally conservative" (right/left) with more balanced budgets and higher taxes and much lower growth rates.
That's the thing with "neoliberalism", guys like Art Laffer had a bigger impact than Friedman on real world policy in America.

>>22846356
>It's better to have lower marginal tax rates and less brackets so high skilled jobs are rewarded.
And eventually you can get a flat tax or go full regressive and make people earning least fund things the most marginally with private charity or lotto tickets or something equally stupid

The liberal government seeks to eliminate itself.

>>22845312
He wanted UBI as an excuse to dissolve all government services.

>>22847140
>None of Friedman's "rules" were ever adopted (because they can't work) lol
What would your criticism be of Friedman's rule based monetarism?

You can check what inflation rates were like pre and post 80s. It used to violently oscillate. Then it became steady at 2%. When the Federal Reserve recently saw that inflation was going out of control, they became committed to the idea that their mandate to lower inflation is more important than maintaining full employment. The commitment was credible, and it's likely part of the reason why we're in the soft landing scenario and not replaying what happened under Reagan.
>eventually you can get a flat tax or go full regressive and make people earning least fund things the most marginally with private charity or lotto tickets or something equally stupid
And that's stupid how? Flatter taxes shouldn't be a problem whether you're left or right.

remember retards, "neoliberalism" denotes the type of laissez-faire governments that thatcher and Regan brought into mainstream politics ..... not some kind of peculiar, american she-man with multi-coloured , dyed hair

>/r/neoliberal/
genuinely the only place on the internet where neoliberalism is actually taken seriously

>>22847396
>What would your criticism be of Friedman's rule based monetarism?
It's inherently contradictory. You can't use interest rates, target a certain "quantity" of money and have price stability. That's why the Volcker Fed quickly and quietly backed off targeting the money supply because it became obvious they would of caused mass insolvency and a deflationary situation worse than the great depression.
Why having technocrats using nominal interest rates to try to "control" inflation is optimal is beyond me. It takes some "pressure" off politicians to shift around blame but why not just delegate more powers like taxation to them as well instead of leaving that up to politicians? Why have any discretion on anything?

>You can check what inflation rates were like pre and post 80s
The alternative story is it could of had something to do with energy prices and globalization. If OPEC tried something funny in the 80s and America went more protectionist maybe prices would of not slowed down. You could argue inflation was pushed upwards because of Fed policies in the early 80s than otherwise might have been the case

>When the Federal Reserve recently saw that inflation was going out of control, they became committed to the idea that their mandate to lower inflation is more important than maintaining full employment. The commitment was credible, and it's likely part of the reason why we're in the soft landing scenario and not replaying what happened under Reagan.
They tried to use interest rate policies to cause a recession and failed. Japan (a major energy importer unlike America) didn't follow the rate hiking trend and it had no major macro difference

>And that's stupid how? Flatter taxes shouldn't be a problem whether you're left or right.
From a marginalist perspective there's an obvious issue e.g. "left" issue is the value/need of income doesn't scale similarly. But the point was don't think the "right" would even be satisfied with flat taxation on income but would still push for replacing that with more regressive forms like taxing consumption instead

>>22847697
>It's inherently contradictory. You can't use interest rates, target a certain "quantity" of money and have price stability.
And yet that's what the Fed successfully does all the time. You tell an alternative always supply side narrative here:
>The alternative story is it could of had something to do with energy prices and globalization. If OPEC tried something funny in the 80s and America went more protectionist maybe prices would of not slowed down. You could argue inflation was pushed upwards because of Fed policies in the early 80s than otherwise might have been the case
But then you have to explain why inflation always just so happened to be close to the Fed's target of 2%. In the early 2010s there was also spikes in oil prices, but this didn't translate to higher prices. As such, while supply factors are always at play, an explanation relying on that alone is ad hoc.
>Why having technocrats using nominal interest rates to try to "control" inflation is optimal is beyond me.
Having monetary policy ran by independent central banks is commonplace in democracies. They don't have unelected technocrats deciding tax rates. That sounds like a recipe for disaster. The only way to lower aggregate demand in such a system would be to raise taxes on income, consumption or cut spending while inflation is going up. Good luck selling that better than independent central banks.
>They tried to use interest rate policies to cause a recession and failed.
The goal is not to create a recession. That's a possible side effect but not some goal. Reducing aggregate demand can have the short term consequence of lowering real GDP and thus cause a recession. However this not a guarantee, and it can be mitigated by having a credible Federal Reserve that anchors inflation expectations.
>"left" issue is the value/need of income doesn't scale similarly. But the point was don't think the "right" would even be satisfied with flat taxation on income but would still push for replacing that with more regressive forms like taxing consumption instead
The left should realize that any stable social democracy organically would have flatter taxes than the US. This being because the revenue you need for such a state as in the Nordic nations requires high taxes on a broad base. You're not finding it with only billionaires. The trade off such nations engage in are high taxes on everyone, using even high regressive taxes like those consumption while having universal programs.

Your explanation for why right wingers might not want a flat tax is just to say there's some who would take it even further. But we're talking about going from a progressive tax system to a flat tax system, so they'd obviously back the reform between those two options.

>>22845285
What convinces me neoliberalism is good is how insanely uncharitable and emotion-driven all anti-neoliberal arguments are. If you talk about neoliberalism like it's some eldritch monster that infects everything with its infinite invisible tentacles then you've lost the plot.

>>22848455
>And yet that's what the Fed successfully does all the time
Except it doesn't? The Fed doesn't target the money supply, they very briefly flirted with the idea but gave up under Volker. The Fed changes nominal interest rates to try to manipulate demand and bond buying programs to manage solvency. All the monetarists were scared QE was going to be hyperinflationary over a decade ago

>But then you have to explain why inflation always just so happened to be close to the Fed's target of 2%. In the early 2010s there was also spikes in oil prices, but this didn't translate to higher prices.
I don't know why you'd think that'd be hard. Globalization and the factors that caused wage push inflation in the developed nations basically disappeared over that period.
And the politics of oil and prices changes was totally different... America letting the dollar float in the 70s and being more dependent on importing oil from the middle east caused things to be much more uncertain. America went from an importer to exporter of energy in that period.

>Having monetary policy ran by independent central banks is commonplace in democracies. They don't have unelected technocrats deciding tax rates.
Why do you think people are comfortable giving politicians control over tax rates but want interest rates under control of bureaucrats? I don't think it actually has much to do with "democracy". The idea of an "independent central bank" is popular with neolibs but not actually "popular".

>Reducing aggregate demand can have the short term consequence of lowering real GDP and thus cause a recession. However this not a guarantee, and it can be mitigated by having a credible Federal Reserve that anchors inflation expectations.
If you believe in anchoring expectations for guiding inflation maybe a more efficient alternative would be to control the media and outlaw bad vibes.

>This being because the revenue you need for such a state as in the Nordic nations requires high taxes on a broad base.
Or you could run larger trade and budget deficits (well if your not like Finland and a Eurocuck). There's no reason you have to "fund" state expense like that. Nordic states spend less relatively and do tax more regressively relative to America actually but it's because of "fiscal conservative" ideology being more popular there not fundamental laws of nature.

>>22849961
>The Fed changes nominal interest rates to try to manipulate demand and bond buying programs to manage solvency.
You make some good point. Still, this affects the money supply. The Federal Funds rate is manipulated by purchasing or selling T-bills. In the former case with money the Fed has created which injects money into the economy, and the later pulls money out of the economy. Similar is happening with quantitative easing, except it's other securities.
>America letting the dollar float in the 70s and being more dependent on importing oil from the middle east caused things to be much more uncertain. America went from an importer to exporter of energy in that period.
America went from an importer to exporter in 2019, not during the oil price spikes of the early 2010s. During this time the need to become energy independent was a big talking point. Nonetheless inflation was low at the time.
>Why do you think people are comfortable giving politicians control over tax rates but want interest rates under control of bureaucrats?
One is less salient than the other. Buying something at the store and having a higher consumption tax imposed on you is very noticable. A larger portion of your paycheck going to taxes is very noticable. This is actually something New Kenyesians embrace in their sticky wages explanation of why expansionary monetary policy is a good thing during economic downturns. The idea being that workers and employees won't negotiate a pay cut when the ability to pay them has declined due to reduced revenue. They won't make a deal where they take a nominal wage cut, but they won't quit if they get a real wage cut. So in that situation, inflation functions to lower labor costs and save jobs. And again, if it were politically feasible to have a tax bureaucracy is a democracy, I'd figure we see that somewhere already. You have this in some minimal aspects with automatic stabilizers, but no one goes all the way to creating a government agency responsible for determining tax rates and spending. There's literally nothing stopping them besides what their constituency wants.
>If you believe in anchoring expectations for guiding inflation maybe a more efficient alternative would be to control the media and outlaw bad vibes.
That's like saying the media could be a good way to control crime. A police force could lower crime just with credible threats, but threats are ultimately credible because of previous actions, meaning they need follow through. The Federal Reserve can only credibly lower inflation expectations if people believe it will follow through on its mandate to control inflation once it makes a statement of its intention to do so.

>>22849961
>Or you could run larger trade and budget deficits
I hope you don't think this is sustainable. Our ability to take on debt is limited by how much investors believe we can pay it back. The only Nordic nations with government spending as a percentage of GDP close to ours right now is Norway at 39%, and this seems to be historically low since they're usually spending at an average of 47%. We wouldn't want to get to that level of spending just using deficits.

>>22851028
The Fed really has no control over the supply of money, they can't force private lenders to extend loans if they don't want to and they can't let institutions "to big to fail" go insolvent and maintain anything like price stability. The whole idea of targeting money was thrown out when Volcker jacked up interest rates and certain contradictions with that became apparent, no major economy ever seriously tried to impose monetarism beyond rhetoric.

And the energy situation was very different from the 70s, include Canada/Mexico in that data and America just wasn't dependent on middle east oil like it was... internationally as well there never was an "energy crisis" like in the 70s playing out.

You're missing my point on how congress delegated monetary policy to an "independent" body but kept the right of taxation/spending to itself. Why is it politically feasible to have a bureaucratic body managing interest rates in a democracy? I don't think it's popular, it just kind of happened and is accepted.

And what you're saying about expectations is largely tautological. What people "believe" can better be controlled by direct brainwashing, that should be more "effective".

>>22851036
>I hope you don't think this is sustainable
It's "sustainable" as long as most of the rest of the world wants to run trade surpluses. Developing nations mostly want to get there and developed nations obsessed with mercantilism do.

>Our ability to take on debt is limited by how much investors believe we can pay it back
Find me the people betting on a default. Don't worry on finding buyers for free dollars. Reductio ad absurdum: sell debt to yourself

>>22851304
>they can't force private lenders to extend loans
Cutting interest rates increases the demand for credit while banks have more to loan out. So just because they don't command the banks doesn't mean they aren't influencing the money supply. Money is being created and injected into banks by buying T-bills.
>You're missing my point on how congress delegated monetary policy to an "independent" body but kept the right of taxation/spending to itself. Why is it politically feasible to have a bureaucratic body managing interest rates in a democracy?
You know it's politically feasible because it exists all over the world and people accept it. There are no big movements to abolish the Federal Reserve. There would likely be major movements to abolish a tax authority that raises your consumption and income taxes when there's already high levels of inflation.
>And what you're saying about expectations is largely tautological. What people "believe" can better be controlled by direct brainwashing, that should be more "effective".
Not at all. You may as well say "the idea that police can control crime through the use of credible threats is tautological." No, when a body is trusted to wield its authority, merely stating it will wield its authority is enough to affect behavior. Plus, the claim isn't merely that inflation expectations alone are the driver of inflation, but that well anchored inflation expectations can lead to a more smooth transition.
>It's "sustainable" as long as most of the rest of the world wants to run trade surpluses. Developing nations mostly want to get there and developed nations obsessed with mercantilism do.
We can't pay off our interests at ever accelerating ratios of public debt to GDP. Eventually you aren't able to pay for it, and no one will want to loan anything out to the government because it can't be trusted to pay it back, and you want to accelerate this trend if you want Nordic levels of spending that are all debt financed.

>>22852067
Except with historically low interest rates there was no major investment boom. The credit creation process is majority private actors making decisions the Fed just has to backstop, playing with nominal rates to try to "manage" "inflation" is just theater.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying on people accepting technocracy on monetary stuff but not on fiscal. If some conspiracy was afoot 100 years ago to depoliticize taxes maybe people wouldn't think they could lobby for tax relief and get more after tax money to fight rising prices and see it more like unpolitical interest rates.,, I'm not saying it's "desirable" but anyone supporting "independence" on one but not another is not far off.

And there's no problem paying at any debt to GDP ratio as long as your using your own monopoly scrip... rolling over debt forever isn't complex at that point. The Fed made interest payments one of the biggest expense for the government and if you really think that can't be handled you could make lots of money by just betting on a sure default but you'd be retarded to do that. The most publicly indebt country is Japan and they have no problem selling debt and becoming more indebt. As long as you don't lose control of exchange rates through opening up opportunities for speculators by taking on liabilities in something else you can't manage like is common in the turd world that can keep going on a lot more than you'd imagine

>>22845285
So important that they...

>>22852534
...streamlined the propaganda for younger audiences

>>22852477
>You're misunderstanding what I'm saying on people accepting technocracy on monetary stuff but not on fiscal. If some conspiracy was afoot 100 years ago to depoliticize taxes maybe people wouldn't think they could lobby for tax relief and get more after tax money to fight rising prices and see it more like unpolitical interest rates.,, I'm not saying it's "desirable" but anyone supporting "independence" on one but not another is not far off.
I understand what you're saying. I just disagree. Whatever top down international conspiracy you think there is to have central banks should give creating an independent tax authority a try. It won't go nearly as well. It's also odd they didn't try to get a tax authority, because you'd think elites would want to have the most efficient tax system possible, shielded from the opinions of the masses who like things like corporate taxes and high marginal tax rates.
>And there's no problem paying at any debt to GDP ratio as long as your using your own monopoly scrip...
Given that you seem to advocate Nordic levels of spending increases that are all just debt financed, sounds like you want a recipe for hyperinflation. At some high enough debt to GDP, you can't pay off your debt multiplied by the interest rate through taxation. Your only option left besides defaulting would be to have the Federal Reserve purchase the debt and in the process create more money and by doing so create inflation. Basically every hyperinflation story ever. This would also affect exchange rates.

I'm not betting that the US will fall into this since I'm not sold on the idea that we're going to embrace weird MMT-esque narratives. I'll reconsider if we get a President AOC.
>>22852534
>>22852535
See >>22847418

>>22852670
Don't care. Terms change, especially terms related to politics. Pedantry is a sign of autism by the way.

>>22852477
You should read the Princes of Yen by Richard Werner.

I still have no idea what “neoliberal” even means

There are people who say “tax corporations and fund social programs while keeping capitalism” is neoliberalism

There are people who say having government regulations for corporations is neoliberalism. There are other people who say removing government regulations from corporations is neoliberalism

There are people who say the assumption that unregulated capitalism is the best economic system is neoliberalism. There are people who say that regulated capitalism is neoliberalism.

>>22845285
Sapiens is the defining Epstein Island Realism book

end cestui que vie birth certificate enslavement
end the central banker cartel

>>22845285
>https://archived.moe/lit/thread/22210731/#22214565

Every man should read

Day 1: How to Have Parental Assets
Day 2: How to Avoid Labor Laws
Day 3: How to Evade Taxes
Day 4: How to Get Free Money from the Government
Day 5: How to Avoid Paying Debts
Day 6: How to Commit Fraud
Day 7: How to Commit Embezzlement
Day 8: How to Get Free Money from the Government Again
Day 9: How to Get a Driver's License Without Being Able to Read or Write
Day 10: How to Get Free Money from the Government for Doing Nothing but Failing
Day 11: How to Have a Reserve Army of Acquaintances to Blame for Your Lifelong Failure
Day 12: How to Steal from Your Employer
Day 13: How to Get Free Money from the Government Just for Breathing
Day 14: How to Steal from Your Employees
Day 15: How to Steal from Your Family
Day 16: How to Get Free Money from the Government (Second Edition)
Day 17: How to Bum a Cigarette
Day 18: How to Talk Your Neighbors into Removing Their Surveillance Cameras
Day 19: How to Get More Free Money from the Government

>>22853279
See >>22845291

>>22852670
>you'd think elites would want to have the most efficient tax system possible, shielded from the opinions of the masses who like things like corporate taxes and high marginal tax rates
Elites and technocrats aren't the same thing. Corporate America doesn't love Fed policy more often than not. If you had some sort of technocratic body imposing tax plans it wouldn't be popular and everybody would hate it surely but if consent could be manufactured no one would do anything about it.

>Nordic levels of spending
Which isn't actually that radically different quantitively. The composition of it is.

>At some high enough debt to GDP, you can't pay off your debt multiplied by the interest rate through taxation. Your only option left besides defaulting would be to have the Federal Reserve purchase the debt and in the process create more money and by doing so create inflation.
At no point do you ever have to pay off debt. It's totally possible to run up perpetually higher debt to GDP as long as the rest of the world does the hard work. Most institutions buying public debt are basically doing that because they're locked into it. The issues arise when the rest of the world don't want to run trade surpluses (e.g. everyone starts importing more from America than they export) because there won't ever be a safer more liquid place to park dollars when foreigners have excess.

>Basically every hyperinflation story ever
Cite one example. Every story of hyperinflation is basically something going very wrong more broadly e.g. if Germany didn't lose WWI and get reparations denominated in gold imposed on them I doubt there would of been a hyperinflation there, if Mugabe didn't decide to destroy Zimbabwe's agriculture, if Argentina didn't borrow dollars from the IMF, etc, etc. I can't think of any nation going into hyperinflation by borrowing from themselves, there's plenty of examples of spending driving inflation high but never into actual hyperinflation without something else going on.