> Also note at the utlity aspect - as a purchasing power, $1.33T and $138B are the same They're not the same. They're similar but they are not the same, this i

> Also note at the utlity aspect - as a purchasing power, $1.33T and $138B are the same They're not the same. They're similar but they are not the same, this is a much too categorical claim. This is because by that point you're not buying things which are for sale, you're buying things which are not for sale, often things which were specifically commissioned, ie they would not have existed at all except that you caused them to be made by providing the funds to do that. You can't magically do whatever you want, and you certainly don't get to have your preferred outcomes but your spending can introduce larger changes with this much extra money. Example: Guinea Worm Eradication could spend huge sums of money to put heavily armed mercenaries behind the programme so that its health workers can go into unstable regions riven by conflict. A well-meaning medic who enters a region where outsiders are routinely raped and killed by one side or the other is likely to end up dead, but if you hire a bunch of elite soldiers to ensure they're OK that'd work... except you might in the process destabilize the region even worse by flooding them with paid mercenaries and their gear. If some poor African country goes from "We have 300 cases of Guinea Worm per year and a civil war killing hundreds of people per day" to "We have eradicated Guinea Worm but the civil war is now killing thousands of people per day" you have clearly made things much worse but you have achieved your goal, for whatever that's worth. What is true is that at this scale incremental value of money is vastly diminished. Having an extra $10 makes an enormous difference if you have $4, it still makes a little difference if you have $400, it makes almost no difference at all if you have $138B.