mhaze,
What you regard as "semantics" are actually the difference between the truth and what only an idiot would believe.

Are you really so empty headed that, even after I've pointed out the difference between what I understand of macroeconomics and those strawman claims that I concur are false, you still regard them as the same?

If you'd properly read what I'd written, you'd know that a floating currency is not the only difference. [Hint: look at the CAPITALS]

You should also have noticed that the economists questioned were not asked to correct the claim to make it true. Therefore it isn't surprising none have done so. Indeed many haven't commented at all. Most who did have raised valid objections, though a few have raised invalid objections based on their own false assumptions.

Many of their comments relate to the danger of hyperinflation. But that's the result of keeping the currency's official value above market value and then losing the ability to do so. If a country with a floating currency prints too much money, it instead results in competitive devaluation, so the country can export its way out of trouble. What you regard as a "distinction without a difference" is actually like the difference between a normal low pressure cell and a tropical cyclone!

Hyperinflation is almost impossible, and extremely easy to avoid, with a floating currency. It is possible when the country sells the money it prints in an attempt to fund foreign currency repayments (hence the requirement for the country to borrow EXCLUSIVELY in its own currency) or when (like Weimar) it hasn't implemented an effective taxation system, or when (like the Confederate States of America) the country's blockaded and its future's under threat.

Your claim "...as more and more money is printed, the currency has to depreciate" assumes constant production. In reality, production is likely to be rising because of technological improvement. Increasing the money supply is likely to result in higher production, so the currency may not have to depreciate and could even appreciate.

Why can't you comprehend that increased production makes the unaffordable affordable?

Aidan,

What's the difference between a floating currency market-driven 'competitive depreciation' and a government mandated 'competitive depreciation'?

mhaze,
The market driven devaluation happens in real time, so is likely to be smaller and therefore have less of an inflationary impact. Also a government managed devaluation is likely to be preceded by speculators making huge amounts of money at the government's expense,

Aidan,

Sorry, but you are not making any sense. I've been managing money for a long time, but I have never heard anyone talking the way you do. Stick to the footy mate.

ttbn,
I apologise for not having explained it sufficiently clearly.

What in particular doesn't make sense to you?
Do you understand why employment depends on money being spent?

I am not criticising the way you have managed money. But do you understand that maximizing the nation's wealth is very different from maximising an investor's wealth?

No Aidan, the question was what's the difference between the two in terms of achieving this 'competitive depreciation' that you think will allow us to borrow willy-nilly. Sure a market-driven depreciation will happen in many small bites as opposed to a government-drive one big bite. But they generally will end up at the same place.

Sure speculators will make money out of the government devaluation, but they also make money out of market-driven devaluation.

So again, if a 'competitive devaluation' is the mechanism to allow unlimited borrowing, why can't that be a government driven devaluation?