I still don't know what this means. What is "spending on debt"? Interest payments? Why are you calling amount spent "spending power"? Spending power evokes the idea of potential, not actual spending. Your terminology is confusing.
> the interest rate may be increased, however that's not always the case.
When the price inflation rate is relatively stable, it will automatically be accounted for via the normal price system (ie not by conscious up pricing).
> Regardless, creditors even if they have already priced in inflation will lobby for low-inflation policies as this increases the return on their assets (that is, debt).
Ok. Well this isn't true when the creditors are primarily banks reciving seigniorge benefits.
> The my claim is trivially verified
Your claim that I'm using seigniorage wrong? The definitions you're quoting about seigniorage agree with the way I'm using the word. I don't know why you think I'm using it wrong.
Net spending == consumption + debt payments
Reduce debt through inflation, consumption increases a share of total spending. Wealth of creditors increases.
We seem to be inhabiting different universes on the remainder of the discussion.
Why is this a useful definition of net spending? What about business spending? What about government spending? Do you include business debt payments in "debt payments"? I also don't know why you think increasing consumption as a total share of spending would increase the wealth of creditors.
I get that you're trying to show how inflation leads to debt reduction. It is true that unexpected and sudden increases in inflation lead to debt reduction, but its only one very small piece of the puzzle. Unexpected and sudden inflation is quite rare in our current economic environment.
If the relative proportion paid to debt service decreases, the relative proportion paid to real goods and services increases.
Debt-dominated economies have regressive wealth allocations.
Debt instruments are not generally inflation-indexed. If there's a belief that there will be inflation, the interest rate may be increased, however that's not always the case. Regardless, creditors even if they have already priced in inflation will lobby for low-inflation policies as this increases the return on their assets (that is, debt).
How monetary policy allocates funds is in fact a policy question, and is determined by policy. There is no Divine Law of Economics which dictates one allocation over another.
You've been asserting without citation as well, just for the record. The my claim is trivially verified:
seignorage. 1. Something claimed or taken by virtue of sovereign prerogative; specifically, a charge or toll deducted from bullion brought to a mint to be coined; the difference between the cost of a mass of bullion and the value as money of the pieces coined from it. (1913 Webster)
http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=gcide&Query=Sei...
Seigniorage is the difference between the face value of money, such as a $10 bill or a quarter coin, and the cost to produce it. In other words, the economic cost of producing a currency within a given economy or country is lower than the actual exchange value, which generally accrues to governments who mint the money.
https://www.investopedia.com/search/?search-terms=seigniorag...
Again: the words you're using don't mean what you're asserting they mean.