> Then the government can tax that money, and that gives it non-inflationary spending room to reallocate those resources.
Hmm, why might it be important to have a non-inflationary means of spending? I wonder. Of course, the government can print money. They can't just print all the money they want forever with no consequences.
> For example, there’s a car company that’s using up most of the country’s steel supply. But the government wants to shift the country’s manufacturing from cars to other green industries.
A car company is not "using up" the steel supply. They are meeting consumer demand for cars. If consumers found green technologies more useful than cars, they would buy that instead, then the green technology companies would be able to outbid the car companies for steel and they would buy it. If they aren't it's because people find cars more useful than whatever "green technologies" are.
Also, if there's a high demand for steel, new steel suppliers can enter the market and increase the supply of steel. There's no need for the government to manage this and it's generally harmful for them to do so, since they are allocating resources away from something people have demonstrated they find useful and towards something they don't find useful. This is not optimal. We should want the resources to go where they are most useful and valued, not where some bureaucrat decides he or she likes them to go.
Hmm, why might it be important to have a non-inflationary means of spending? I wonder. Of course, the government can print money. They can't just print all the money they want forever with no consequences.
> For example, there’s a car company that’s using up most of the country’s steel supply. But the government wants to shift the country’s manufacturing from cars to other green industries.
A car company is not "using up" the steel supply. They are meeting consumer demand for cars. If consumers found green technologies more useful than cars, they would buy that instead, then the green technology companies would be able to outbid the car companies for steel and they would buy it. If they aren't it's because people find cars more useful than whatever "green technologies" are.
Also, if there's a high demand for steel, new steel suppliers can enter the market and increase the supply of steel. There's no need for the government to manage this and it's generally harmful for them to do so, since they are allocating resources away from something people have demonstrated they find useful and towards something they don't find useful. This is not optimal. We should want the resources to go where they are most useful and valued, not where some bureaucrat decides he or she likes them to go.