With all due respect to Dave andf Jeff

That motivated me to go back to an article that San Jose State University economist Jeff Hummel and I had published in Independent Review back in 2014 that, for some reason, I don't seem to have posted about here. It's titled "The Inevitability of a
U.S. Government DefaultU.S. Government Default." In it, we argue that the feds are likely to default, that money creation as an alternative is not likely to get them out of their fiscal fix, and that default is actually better economically than massively high inflation.

A default by government results in a permanent loss of money into the remaining economy.  What do we call that lost money except unexpected unencumbered spending funds. You cannot get closer than that to money creation.

What the bold refers to is debt based money creation, likely be extending the yield curve. That money is still encumbered by a mark to market.

I think standard money semantics has illegally defined away the most bearer of bearer cassh, the losses from default. Hence, true unencumbered funds appear out of order in the defitional hierarchy when under discussion.  The is back to free entry and exit, we break Say's law on the margin often.