Economists, like everyone else, have to make a living with their craft. Luckily for them, their craft is more akin to throwing bones than any real science and that presents the opportunity to twist their predictions to greatly favor those who pay them. Also, the more theory and complexity they can interject, the less scrutiny they will receive, even when evidence and history show they are wrong enough times to make their being right a statistical "lucky shot" when it does occur.

Simply denying the government's ability to create money and regulate its supply in the economy, relegating all such responsibility to business and the banks, has been a stroke of genius for their employers. Doing so has made the real resources and labor that support any society secondary to the dollars, a mostly contrived device used to measure those real items, that our government has an infinite supply of. When the currency-issuer is viewed as a "cost" to productivity it is precluded from supporting the vital common infrastructure that enables commerce in the first place, not the least of which is a common currency that isn't shackled with the requirement to be "paid for".

This has led us to constantly question "How will we pay for it?" whenever any benefit to society that doesn't create profit for a "market" is proposed, even if the end cost of the market-based solution is more expensive by multiple, as with single-payer v. for-profit healthcare. Politicians even question if we can "afford" to avoid the demise of our species at the hands of climate change which is an entirely predictable outcome of market-based capitalism. They have offered us only the option of giving up any reasonable creature comforts or condemning our children to a horrible death, but with our toys and markets intact.

Unremarkably, they have opted to save the toys and markets.