Many politicians, in addition to supporting the purity of our economic system but who are not all that sure about the very political system that they represent have taken on various myths and some which they themselves tend to invent on a daily basis.
The ideas of free enterprise and free market which overlapped our then notions of democracy onto this then young democracy appeared to be more real then, before national and international monopolies than what we are experiencing today.
Today, when we are also superimposing on those earlier economic notions a grand and present one, that of a free global economic society, we have created an even more significant myth.
Are all the previous and present myths, those that politicians who have by the very nature of their work accepted? Are they the officials who have been elected for having this economic knowledge instilled within them at the outset? Do they really know what our economy is or has been or is described to become?
Their knowledge seems to include more of what we want the economy to be. It is like the historical declaration of independence and the inspirations within our constitution, aimed at what should be.
But do these desires coincide with the existing realities? Or do they become part of a larger myth? And does China within our global economy also believe in this introverted overall economic myth?
Does the control of monetary values by individual governments and international agencies not throw a wrench into all these described myths? Did Adam Smith in his description of what Karl Marx later called Capitalism know the effect that capital and the evolution of stock exchanges would have on free enterprise and free market?
Smith's notion of the economy was influenced and dominated by the type of small business operated by the human being who established it or who later inherit it from his father with whom he had worked in developing it.
That entrepreneur's prominent dream at the time was not that of creating a corporation that would be selling its stock on the New York Exchange. His profit was not to come primarily from the value of stock but from the value of the products he produced.
He was not through this process comparing or contrasting the value of his business with businesses in the rest of the world and to capitalize on that value. His intentions were not to create capital, if so not for the purpose of stock exchange.
Therefore, today we have something else, something different than in notions of the economy that we once held or in our view of the economy we once tried to describe.
Do our politicians today know what the new realities are or do they still hang on to old myths while passing laws to "manage" what they consider to be a free economy? Are these notions mixed and unrelated?
Can we really separate government from what we say economy is today. Can we still with our copy of the Wealth of Nations in one pocket and the Constitution in another understand what our economy is and how it functions?
Can we then, on top of these older notions pile up this new fiction, that of "fiscal responsibility," calling for the elimination of revenue-creation by doing away with taxes? Does this new fiction provide us with a better notion of what government is and what it does. Can we still return to an 18th century economy within this newer forming global economy?
What does fiscal mean? The very word in its origin is related to the tax collection basket and with the elimination of taxes how does fiscal, with the removal of that basket provide responsibility? Does it mean a return to the society that Adam Smith thought he observed or described, before the establishment of the national income tax system?