I worry that the general decline of discretionary government spending may make politics less stable (but also more interesting, not necessarily in a good way). When there is plenty of spending to bicker about, politics revolves around that question, which is relatively harmless. When all the spending is tied up, we move closer to the battlefield of symbolic goods, bringing us back to “less stable and more interesting.” If that is a cause, this trend is likely to spread.
For a longer essay on the way that government borrowing creates political friction, see my essay Lenders and Spenders.
“Think of a simple economy, where the only product is corn. ”
This sounds EXACTLY like Interstellar. You should sue for 12.5% of royalties.
Discretionary always becomes obligatory once implemented so the distinction isn’t less discretionary but simply less rather than more.