Suppose the government issued a financial asset that, adjusted for risk and liquidity, promised a higher rate of return than any alternative asset. The government can do this, because it has the power to tax. Everybody prefers holding that government-issued financial asset to any other asset.
There would be an excess demand for that government-issued asset. The only way to eliminate that excess demand would be for the government to buy up all the other assets in exchange for that asset. The government would be operating one big closed-end mutual fund, that owned all the assets in the economy, with people owning shares in that mutual fund. And the rate of return on those mutual fund shares would be guaranteed by the government's power to tax.
Most people would be against that policy. Perhaps we could call the few people who supported it "Mutual Fund Marxists"?
Now let's suppose that particular government-issued financial asset is also used as the medium of exchange. An excess demand for the medium of exchange causes a recession. Each individual tries to ensure that the flow of money leaving his pocket is less than the flow of money entering his pocket, so the stock of money in his pocket increases over time. This is possible for each individual, but impossible in aggregate (unless the government increases the aggregate stock sufficiently quickly over time), but the attempt by each to do something they cannot all do causes a recession.
So we would have a permanent recession, unless the government implemented Mutual Fund Marxism, by buying up all the assets in the economy in exchange for government-issued money, to eliminate that excess demand for government-issued money.
The threat of permanent recession I have just described is usually called "secular stagnation". The proposed cures of ever-expanding central bank balance sheets and national debts are the first steps towards Mutual Fund Marxism.
Should we blame the economy for secular stagnation, or should we blame the government for issuing a financial asset that promises a more attractive rate of return than other assets, and that also is used as medium of exchange?
Would private financial institutions, that lack the power to tax, ever do the same thing?
Some might reasonably argue that the twin threats of permanent recession or Mutual Fund Marxism themselves lower the expected rate of return on other assets.
Just a slightly different way of looking at some old questions. Secular stagnation is the same question as the Optimum Quantity of Money.
Addendum: If we want to avoid having to choose between secular stagnation or Mutual Fund Marxism, we need to increase the yield spread between government-issued money and other assets. One way would be to target NGDP level path, with a suitably high growth rate for NGDP (presumably a rough proxy for the nominal rates of return on other assets). A second way would be to raise the inflation target. A third way would be a Gesellian tax (negative interest rate) on money.