Passing debt on to future generations means nothing today

It is often claimed that the highly expansionary fiscal policies conducted since the subprime crisis are open to criticism, since they consist in passing debt on to future generations. But this claim is debatable, for two reasons: If a country increases its public debt considerably, and if it has to restore its fiscal solvency through restrictive fiscal policies, this penalises the country's economic agents very rapidly, well before the future generation has replaced the current generation. This was clearly shown, for example, by the case of Greece in the 2000s-2010s; Currently, fiscal deficits are being monetised in all OECD countries; the public debt held by central banks is in reality "zero-coupon perpetuities" that do not worsen countries' fiscal solvency. The problem is therefore the money creation associated with the monetisation and not the debt. What does "passing money on to future generations" mean? In reality, this can be much more dangerous than passing on debt, if excessive money creation very rapidly drives up real estate prices, making it increasingly difficult for young people to access housing.