In a fiat currency system, government expenditure, the scale of a government deficit, taxation, and the control of inflation (see separate entries) are as a consequence all intimately related issues. This makes the artificial disaggregation of macroeconomic policy into fiscal policy and monetary policy deeply harmful to the overall control of the economy of a jurisdiction by its government.
A proper understanding of fiat money also puts it at the heart of macroeconomics, when at present it is treated as peripheral to that subject by neoclassical economics, or is even ignored by it.
So there’s this entire and whole portion of neoclassical economics – monetary policy – which discusses just how goddam important money and policy about it is to the economy. Milton Friedman being one of the great thinkers here. This is then proof that neoclassical economics ignores monetary policy?