"If we don’t have the money, just borrow it from the future. Money is just a social fiction."

I know you are an economist and I appreciate that you "almost" get it concerning government spending and money creation: However, you still frame the issue in the language of the oppressors.

"Borrow it from the future" implies that there will be a repayment at some future date and that someone must give up something in this present time, justifying payment of interest, to enable that borrowing. This is entirely backward from the reality of "any" economy using a sovereign fiat currency that is a monopoly owned by the issuing government/central bank.

Such money, used by almost all major economies and counties since the end of the gold standard, is simply a tool to deploy real resources and labor into the private sector and a denomination for contracts. It is not a "thing" that is in finite supply or must be "found" from some external source (tax/bonds) prior to being available to governments to spend. In fact, such governments must spend the currency into existence before it is available to collect or borrow.

While most countries are legally required to issue bonds to balance deficit spending, laws can be changed and spending on the public purpose needs no offset when no gold reserve exists to be defended. The "debt" that politicians use to beat us about the head and shoulder should we demand any benefit from our government is not a debt in the normal use of the word. It is the accumulated store of value from our commerce and our "net" money supply after private sector bank debt is balanced out.

Most major economies, especially the US and UK, can "afford" anything that exists, or potentially exists, and that can be purchased in the denomination the issuing government can create in infinite supply, even in the absence of revenue. This makes any misery or failure of government to serve the needs of the people, and the planet, entirely a "political choice", not economics.