Consider the latest missive from the Congressional Budget Office.
If [someone] starts with a big enough myth, can they get whole populations and disciplines to go along with nonsense? The answer throughout history is .... "sure!"
Yet where does that leave us? Before even considering the CBO's data, please consider the following questions, to establish and orient to context. After all, without context, data is meaningless.
1) Is the entirety of orthodox economics simply an extension of class hegemony - maintained as a cultural habit?
2) Is it actually a generally agreed upon cultural taboo to question the nonsensical axioms of orthodox economics?
3) Is orthodox economics inseparable from "court" management theory, used by aristocrats to manage "their" assets?
While pondering that context, consider the reality that there is a gulf between fiat currency operations (e.g., MMT) and orthodox economics, simply because any aggregate, operational approach, by definition, is tuned to SOME stated purpose - aka, group policy.
That claim of being a method divorced from purpose ought to set off warning bells. "Danger Will Robinson. Danger Will Robinson. Control Frauds are running loose in our Policy Staff!"
All functional diversions of patterns of tool-use from consensus purpose, constitute - by default - various shades of Control Fraud. Simply because special interests will always fill a policy void left dangling, lacking aggregate purpose.
The result? Innocent Frauds may practice only Innocent Control Fraud (ICF) by default, but it is control fraud nonetheless. The concept holds, even if you prefer to call it incompetence.
Is there any resistance to this widespread lack of aggregate purpose for economic theory? Perhaps. See the following article.
CBO’s scoring system holds U.S. government back on long-term programs
However, this text is so long-winded that it's difficult to fully discern whether the author's Context Awareness is consistently rooted in allegiance to public purpose, fraud or incompetence. Maybe a bewildering mix of all three? :(
Back to the CBO article. Let's now get to their treatment of data.
They soon get right to their beginning myth, then base all economic modeling around this assumption.
'Deficits thus “crowd out” private domestic investment in the long run.'And how do they get their conclusions to support their premise? With the rudderless tool of "orthodox economic theory" of course! Starting with a definition connected to no context whatsoever:
"The sum S + (T – G) equals national saving"
They're referring to a common, presumed notation. I = S + (T – G) – NFI
So for the CBO, "national saving" = (priv+biz saving) + (taxes - total spending). In other words, "national saving" = (Public Investment) + NetForeignInvestment.
Next, note that I + NFI = trade balance (pos or neg), in econ jargon.
So far, so close.
Yet one implicit point becomes clear, though unstated! Managing the trade deficit is their implied control variable? Their "objective?"
(For Pete's sake! That is gold-std thinking. It's like the CBO office is staffed by blondes listening to a variant of the "breathe-in, breathe-out" tapes.)
First off, they're treating the sum of pub+priv savings as a static asset. There's no presence nor discussion of sinks and sources in their model?
What is the reality?
(and don't forget compounding;
some teamwork really is more useful than other teamwork)
We have a key problem in using macro-economic theory to shape national policy. Regardless of all the definitions & rhetoric, there is no formal acknowledgement of Public Purpose in orthodox macro economics!
What is our national objective? Our Public Purpose?
..Which economic model variable TRACKS that objective?
..Which methods drive variables to push economic models in the direction of that objective?
Orthodox macro economists can't answer those questions because asking them is NOT allowed in the framework of orthodox macro economic modeling! It's a theoretical accounting method that refuses to acknowledge any purpose OTHER than ex post, static asset accounting.
At the same time, economic theory studiously ignores the evolution of banking operations!
You couldn't make this up. A management theory that refuses to consider aggregate purpose and also ignores evolving operations. What could go wrong?
Again, merely for the sake of tempo in this comedy routine, let's continue anyway.
Does anyone see a National Assessment System at work in any of this?
I'm getting the feeling that it's all implicitly biased to make & keep key political constituents rich, no matter what happens to our country. Smells like teenage aristocratic philosophy? The CBO really is advising us to manage currency_issuer finances just like currency_user finances? We need an electorate which knows the difference, so we can maintain a policy staff which knows it.
Let's reconsider something that is implicit in our National Policy Guide: "Assume some myth or propaganda, then see what our macro economic models mean ... relative to that myth." [Alrighty then! Werks fur mi!]
That's no way to run a family, a company, an army, or a nation - all of which set AGGREGATE objectives first, and then explore all options for achieving them.
Our curreny National Policy Guide is, however, how royalty look at the serfs in their various "possessions." If citizens and aggregate don't matter, then of course orthodox macro economics works. Just treat humanity as another variable to manipulate [without their will]. The simple question is "who does it work FOR?"
To me, the CBO's logic is NOT a model for managing national development.
It IS, however, a model for managing who privately owns any and all declared static assets (or thinks they own them).
We need an electorate, Congress & CBO that puts out a yearly report entitled:
Federal Thinking Deficits
on Adaptive Rate Of The USA"