The FTPL seems to put a lot of focus on the government debt aspect of monetary policy (not unlike MMT, which however draws different prescriptions). I think mor

The FTPL seems to put a lot of focus on the government debt aspect of monetary policy (not unlike MMT, which however draws different prescriptions). I think more mainstream Keynesian/Monetarist theories don't deny that government debt is an important part of monetary policy, they just add that there are other things that play important roles too such as private debt, banks, supply shocks, money velocity etc. In the long arcs of monetary policy, government debt might play an outsize role along the lines of what the FTPL predicts but in the shorter term, because businesses and people often move faster than governments when it comes to borrowing and spending decisions, there remains important monetary policy work to be done to smooth out the potentially costly monetary transients. In times when governments are acting somewhat responsibly and not spending too much beyond their means, FTPL might be much less relevant and there would still be monetary policy concerns stemming from fluctuations in the private movement of money or from other supply or demand shocks.