We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Economists are vocal proponents of the simplistic scientific method. If they can’t present their work as experimental, they strive to label it “quasi-experimental.” But if you read an introductory economics text, virtually none of the content is based on experiments. Instead, good economics texts are packed with truisms based on calm observation of humanity: incentives change behavior, trade is mutually beneficial, supply slopes up, demand slopes down, excess supply leads to surpluses, excess demand leads to shortages, externalities lead to inefficiency. These lessons are as undeniable as “the heart pumps blood” and “the stomach digests food.” But they’re nevertheless supremely insightful and useful. Designing social institutions without considering incentives is as absurd trying to stuff food down people’s lungs.
The first thing they must deny is the first rule of economics: supply is finite and demand is infinite. They also think they can change human nature so economic truisms are nothing more than somebody's (right wing) idea.
I'm not defensive at all about it at all. Both parties are to blame for where we are WRT the debt but while there are only a few pubbies who are genuinely concerned, there are virtually no lefties who are. Trump made it an issue in the campaign. Hillary ignored it all together. Obama made noises about it before he became president and then doubled it. Both parties are to blame for not having a budget for the last eight years.
The left is adamant about base line budgeting so the budget always grows. The left has fought all balanced budget amendments. The left has come ups with most of the free stuff proposals. The left has come up with most of the laws that take money from people who earned it and gives it to people who didn't. And on and on...
In other words you are quite partisan about a terminal trajectory the right is arguably more to blame for. Add in the left's persistent rancor about banks - if it's accidental or conscious us up for debate - and it's even more arguable that the corporatist right bears most of the blame.
Remember, like the leftist, the rightist is defined by his statism. How if occurs and how he assists it is irrelevant, at least as far as the definition goes.
The only basic economic texts I had were strictly Keynesian, in fact no other economic theories or economists were even mentioned.
And they were of course very clear about what drives the economy, and that's the Government. If the economy is "too hot", taxes and central bank interest rates need to go up. If the economy is "too slow", increase subsidies and lower interest rates.
Those 2 mechanisms were stated as the sole parameters driving economic development...
JTW: The only basic economic texts I had were strictly Keynesian, in fact no other economic theories or economists were even mentioned.
As Keynesian Economics is a market-based theory and presupposes classical economics, it's hard to imagine such a text. A review of economic textbooks show that nearly all start with supply and demand models.