"The money is spent" is another term for sunk cost, meaning whatever it's spent on is irretrievable going forward, since all economic costs are forward costs to be incurred or avoided at the margin, so sunk costs are not economic costs for the same reason.

This is how accountants came to be known as bean counters, because they dabble in the recovery of sunk costs. Economists regard accountants equivalent to the untouchable classes in India, where in the US they're known as "The Sunken".

In this case Brooks was referring to certain socialist economists who do include sunk cost as an economic cost, for example, "Whose Your Nanny" Dean Baker who claims the money is not spent and even if it is, it can never become sunk because when debt is monetized by the Fed, the government ends up paying itself back for the interest and the principal is disposed of in a high security burn bag after the recession is over.


Stupid liberals.

The Fed is currently holding about a $trillion in MBSs, largely for the benefit of banks.

you call that stream of gibberish "earning a paycheck?"

"We have known for a long time that regulation is about balance. The proper regulatory regime has to be set case by case and year by year."

Who is this "We" Brooks is talking about? Can these words have really emanated from the mouth of a propagandist for the party that has been categorically and ideologically opposed to regulation of any kind for the last thirty years? Has Brooks undergone some kind of conversion? Seen the Light?