&gt; Yes I do! Do you? The term is called quantitative easing and it is a mechanism of last resort! Amazing! And totally irrelevant to the debate!<p>So you understand how quantitative easing stimulates the economy but you don&#x27;t see the analogy to creating more copies of information goods?<p>&gt; Speaking of irrelevancy, do you know what the government usually does during a recession before they resort to actually printing money? If you do you win!<p>They... lower taxes and increase&#x2F;maintain government spending. Which you can&#x27;t do at the same time as each other without either borrowing or creating money, and government borrowing money increases interest rates, hence the printing.<p>&gt; No I&#x27;m not! No disguises. I am illustrating an isomorphism. Copying is stealing and the concept is EXACTLY the same as printing money.<p>Then just claim copying is stealing directly so people can better understand why you&#x27;re wrong. The analogy is unnecessary and it doesn&#x27;t even hold in that context.<p>If you use forged currency to &quot;buy&quot; a loaf of bread, the store is out one loaf of bread. If you copy some information the store&#x27;s balance sheet is unchanged. The two are not equivalent and trying to ignore the difference is exactly what leads to the crazy conclusions the law makes about the calculation of damages for copyright infringement.<p>Notice that this is not saying that copyright infringement causes no damages. It is merely saying that the damages are not equal to the cost of the product, unlike the situation of an actual theft.<p>I&#x27;m not sure you would even like a direct analogy to theft. A store buys a loaf of bread for $1 and aims to sells it for $1.50 (or whatever). If you steal it, the loss they take on their books is their cost, not the retail price. Calculating damages that way wouldn&#x27;t be very favorable to copyright holders.