Why has Alistair Darling been so quick to deny that he has any plans to print money? This puzzles me because, in principle, the mere announcement that the government is considering doing so might stimulate the economy.One of the alleged dangers of deflation is that if people expect prices to fall, they stop spending in anticipation of lower prices later. One way to boost demand, then, is to increase inflation expectations - by merely threatening to consider printing money. This will encourage people to spend in anticipation of rising prices.Why then, did Darling go out of his way to rule out quantitative easing? Lots of possible answers seem inadequate:“Higher inflation expectations will raise gilt yields and hence borrowing costs.” But this is only a problem because the gilt funding remit (pdf) is so restrictive, committing the government to issuing conventionals. A more flexible remit would allow it to issue more linkers, whose costs are unaffected by inflation.“To consider quantitative easing could worsen the downturn, by signalling to people that the economic outlook is even worse than thought.” But Darling has already done this , admitting that the recovery might not come as soon as thought.“The threat of deflation is exaggerated.” This, though, is inconsistent with the government’s hyperactive efforts to avoid it, by fiscal stimulus and other ad hoc policies.“Darling does not want to openly admit to hurting savers.” But this won’t do. To any Keynesian, savers are a threat to an economy in recession. They should therefore be hurt.This makes me suspect there is another reason for Darling’s swift denial that he’s considering quantitative easing.To say “we’re thinking about it” might make sense as economic policy. But it’s inconsistent with the image politicians must project in a - yes - managerialist system.Within managerialism, to admit to thinking about possible policies is to confess to uncertainty. But “strong leadership” requires decisiveness, and the elimination of uncertainty. To a managerialist, policies are impossible until they become inevitable; there can be no doubt.Yet again, good economics and managerialist ideology are in conflict.