Years ago E. Michael Jones was writing about Keynes' "homosexual economics," and I naively objected to him that this phrase was needlessly prejudicial, since Keynes' sexuality was not relevant to his monetary ideas. Now I suspoct Mike Jones was right, although I think the difference is not beween "straight" and "gay" economics, but between "parents'" and "non-parents'" economics. What I'm getting at, is that people who tend to think only of themselves and their own generation and their own short-term benefit--- that would be, non-parents --- tend to assume that borrowing money, consuming high on the hog, printing lots of currency and goosing the system from time to time to keep the economic juices flowing, is a real good thing. The long-term results don't matter, because -- in Keynes' phrase ---
"in the long run we're all dead." People with kids, family-men, tend to put more emphasis on the distant consquences of their actions, limit the self-serving impulse spending, and favor solid long-term processes which will benefit children and children's children. They'd say "In the long run, our children will inherit all this (this legacy or this mess.)"
I guess we're doomed?