Mitigating a real problem requires real resources. Printing money does not give you infinite access to real resources. Thus, there is a bound to what real resources you can apply to a real problem by printing money.

What's so controversial here?

It sounds like you're talking about inflation? I don't think we're near any limits on stimulus as far as inflation is concerned. It does not look like inflation is increasing at the moment, likely decreasing. We could likely continue to push out consumer stimulus until inflation percentage exceeded what we'd consider above normal year over year.

Yes, I am -- that's what happens when you try to use the money printer that currently works and scale it up to unbounded resources (eventually).

And again, it sounds like you're agreeing with the point that I'm making. We can disagree about when it will be a problem, but you can't just trivialize the very idea of any mitigation effort being unaffordable because "we just print the money anyway, so affordability is meaningless", as the original comment was effectively arguing.

Has anyone said we needed unbounded stimulus? I don't think so. However, there are certainly economic theories around those ideas though, such as UBI, so I would not say that it's infeasible for a country to continue to run in such a fashion.

That said, given our current economy, inflation is not a concern. If you are concerned about real resources, such as human lives, then that is basically what we're exchanging right now for hypothetical inflation prevention at some unknown point in the future. We have a very real physical threat now versus a potential economic threat in the future. How many lives are worth preventing a few fractional percentage points of inflation?

Also the economy running without restriction right now greatly inflates medical costs, and overwhelms real medical resources. We're kind of in a catch-22, as the medical system cannot keep up in areas that try to fully open the economy, and that just aggravates losses of "real resources"(human lives). The economy is hitting medical limits before inflation is anywhere near a concern.

Affordability and inflation is murky. Even how we measure inflation is iffy. Cost of living varies greatly by region. There are subsidies obfuscating the real cost of goods. Tons of money has been spent on worse things. It just seems penny pinching always comes out when it comes to social programs that help those with the least to gain, and most to lose from the situation.

>Has anyone said we needed unbounded stimulus?

Somebody dismissed the very idea of there being limitations to our ability to pay for stimulus, yes, which was why I originally entered the thread to address this excessive dismissal:

>>or assuming that our government has enough money lying around to pay everyone this much all of the time

>Federal spending doesn't come from money laying around, in the first place, it comes from money the government decides to have because it wants to spend it.

I said so at the time, and all the other times I referred back to that claim when you asked. Sorry, but I think I'm past the point of diminishing marginal returns here.

The original poster wasn't suggesting unlimited stimulus, the opposite actually, and the person replying to them regarding how federal money is doled out is not terribly far from the mark. If they want to spend the money, they find the money, inflation be damned. It seems way too early to handwring over moral hazards and costs/sustainability of stimulus benefits, when TX and FL are closing back down after their failed experiment.