Go read Stirling, yet again
I can't find the original of all this, but I think the Obama administration fits very neatly into the analytical framework, which dates from 2005:
Money is the key lens of an American constitutional order, because it
is the one part of that order that must work every single day. Money
is the constitution that you carry with you, the government backs its
functioning. How money works creates the range of incentives that
people have, and the range of opportunities. But it also, as
importantly, protects certain ways of piling up wealth - that is rent.
Rent is an advantage in time or space economically. If you are here
first, you claim the land, even if you have to kill or run off some
people to do it. Others must buy it from you, because they recognize
Money itself buys both change, and protection from change - and this
is a basic, and larger, conflict in money itself. Over the course of
the lifetime of a Republic, wealth moves upward - and more and more of
the economic activity of the government is spent, not creating new
wealth, but protecting old wealth. The final crisis starts when the
amount of money required to protect old wealth is more than the
society can produce as a surplus from all of its labors.
Interesting. Puts this "fiscal responsibility" summit in a whole new light, eh?