No need to quote, I disagree with everyone, lol.
I'll refer you to chapter 22 ("The Mirage of Inflation") of Henry Hazlitt's brilliant "Economics in One Lesson," freely available as a PDF online.
But let me give you the key quote from chapter 1:
"The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."
In a nutshell, that's the problem with mainstream economic analysis. It trumpets obvious benefits, while ignoring the ... bad stuff. (I need a thesaurus.)
The problem with mainstream economic analysis is that it obfuscates the real political discussions that could be taking place by makings it's arguments within a framework that doesn't represent reality. So much of the early thinking in economics (Marx, Keynes, Hayek) was done by those living in and explaining economics in a gold-standard world (it was all they knew). Mainstream economists have been educated in that tradition, which could be described as valid and accurate for it's time. But the media, the public, and even many professional and academic economists have yet to realize the complete paradigm shift that occurred when the gold standard was abandoned. Instead of letting go of their classical education or at least viewing it from this side of the paradigm shift, they jump back and forth, not realizing that the old gold-standard framework is no longer valid.
Here are some of the common propositions by mainstream economics that just don't reflect reality. Alongside are the realities.
Mainstream macroeconomics Modern Monetary Theory
Budget deficits are bad Budget deficits are neither good nor bad and are required where the spending intentions of the
non-government sector are insufficient to ensure full utilisation of available productive resources.
Budget surpluses are good Budget surpluses are neither good nor bad and may be harmful in some circumstances if they involve a drag
on growth in situations where there are idle resources.
Budget surpluses contribute to national saving There is no sense to the concept that a currency-issuing government saves in its own currency. Saving is an
act of foregoing current spending to enhance future spending possibilities and applies to a financially-
constrained non-government entity. The government never needs prior funds in order to spend and thus
never needs to “save”.
Budget should be balanced over the business cycle Budget should be allowed to adjust to the level of net spending required to achieve and sustain full
employment given the spending decisions of the non-government sector, irrespective of the state of the
business cycle.
Budget deficits drive up interest rates
because they compete for scarce private saving Private saving is not finite and is related to income. Spending always brings forth its own saving because
saving rises and falls with income movements, which are directly related to movements in spending.
Bond markets determine funding costs of government Central bank sets interest rate and can control any segment of the yield curve it chooses. The costs of
government spending are the real resources that are utilised in any particular public program.
Budget deficits mean higher taxes in the future Budget deficits never need to be paid back. Every generation can freely choose the level of taxation it
pays.
The government will out of fiscal space (money) Fiscal space is more accurately defined as the available real goods and services available for sale in the
currency of issue. The currency-issuing government can always purchase whatever is for sale in its own
currency. Such a government can never run out of its own currency.
Budget deficits equals big government Budget deficits may reflect large or small government. Even small governments will need to run
continuous deficits if there is a desire of the non-government sector to save overall and the policy aim is
to maintain full employment levels of national income.
Government spending is inflationary All spending (private or public) carries an inflation risk. Government spending is not inflationary while
ever real resources are idle (ie. There is unemployment). All spending is inflationary if it drives nominal
aggregate demand faster than the real capacity of the economy to absorb it.
Issuing bonds to the private sector
reduces the inflation risk of deficits There is no difference in the inflation risk attached to a particular level of net public spending when the
government matches its deficit $-for-$ with bond issuance relative to a situation where it issues no
debt. The inflation risk is embodied in the spending rather than the monetary arrangements that are
associated with it (bond-issuance or not).
Intergenerational burdens are linked to inherited
budget deficits in the form of debt that have to be paid back. Intergenerational burdens are linked to the availability of real resources. For example, a
generation that exhausts a non-renewable resource imposes a burden on the next
generation. A future generation cannot transfer real resources back in time.
Unemployment is used to control inflation rate Employment is used to control inflation rate
Sovereign issuer of currency is at risk of default Sovereign issuer of currency is never at risk of default. The issuer of a currency cannot always meet any
liabilities it incurs in that currency.
Taxpayer money Public currency. The taxpayer does not fund anything. Taxes are a device to free up real resources so our
agent, the government can instigate a socio-economy program for our collective benefit.
Humans make rational decisions
based on self-interest Humans are complex and rarely predictable, reason and emotion are inseparable.
If you understand all that and still advocate a monetary policy that targets 0% inflation..... I'm not sure what else can be said.