You entire comment kind of ignores what is meant be a stock-flow consistent model. It _has_ to be consistent. All you points are typical of thinking of money in

You entire comment kind of ignores what is meant be a stock-flow consistent model. It _has_ to be consistent. All you points are typical of thinking of money in terms like "If as the government took on significant debt to produce something that is a net-generator of money. Which is common, OPG for example takes on big debt when building a nuclear power plant but then pays it off by selling the electricity" without thinking about the other side of the balance sheet. The link shows us what happens when you make something actually stock consistent, which is quite a few of the apparently obvious intuitions becomes clearly false. You can't really argue with a stock-flow consistent approach - it absolutely has to be the case. You can discuss where the stocks end up and how they move about (which this model only approaches relatively simply), but it _must_ be consistent. Unless there is dodgy shenanigans going on, the money can only be created and destroyed in a limited set of places, and critically creation and destruction in the vertical money system (i.e. where the net financial assets don't have to sum to zero) can only happen at the central bank.