That aside, he says it will make America great again. Again.

Our own politicians, Turnbull and O’Neill, also tell us that it is their sacred duty to get rid of debt (which is Trump is plainly not doing) and strive for a budget surplus. For this purpose they draw deft and erroneous correlations between the nation’s budget and household budgets.

Deficit budgets are political death apparently.

They also constantly tell us that fixing the mess that the last lot left behind is paramount and growing the economy is axiomatic.

Once that is done, we are assured, it will rain milk and honey on everyone.

This kind of economic evangelism can be mesmerising for the average punter, especially around election time.

So what does it actually mean? Does it actually mean anything at all? And, if so, does it really matter?

Before we try to answer those questions we’d better attempt, in our clumsy way, to define what they are actually talking about.

Unfortunately, the experts either don’t really tell us what the economy is or they offer confusing and conflicting definitions. What they do tell us, however, is how to measure it.

According to the good Doctor Google, “a country's gross domestic product or GDP is a measure of the size and health of its economy.

“It is the total value of goods and services produced over a specific time period. An annual GDP growth rate of 3%, then, simply means that the economy has grown by 3% over the past year”.

Interesting goal, to keep the thing, whatever it is, growing, like a pot plant. Plenty of sunshine, water and the odd bit of fertiliser. And the pollies are never short of fertiliser.

But isn’t whoever wrote that just talking about corporate growth. No mention of actual people individually increasing their production (and wages).

And what about all the other stuff people need?

You know, well-being, access to services, equality, health, security, leisure, a clean environment and all those other freedoms. Aren’t they part of the economy? Apparently not. Is that strange or what?

Ah! Of course. If the corporations grow and make lots of money they can pay more taxes which the government can spend on its people.

Except Trump has just reduced their taxes and Turnbull and O’Neill are talking about doing the same thing. How does that work?

Something called ‘trickle down’ I’m told. If the corporations make more money they can employ more people and pay higher wages and everyone benefits.

Not sure about that. What about all those robots? Aren’t they saying they can bring their factories back from low labour cost countries and set them up with robotics?

More jobs for robots? How does that trickle down? Oh, into the pockets of the bosses. Now I understand.

Didn’t the guy who invented gross domestic product (GDP) to measure the economy, one Simon Kuznets, say, “The welfare of the nation can scarcely be inferred from the measurement of national income”?

Okay, so that line of thought is a can of worms. Let’s try something else. What about this budget surplus/deficit stuff?

Back to the housekeeping analogy.

If you are a family it makes sense that the less debt you have the better.

Unfortunately, for many families, there are certain debts that are unavoidable. Having a mortgage on the family home for instance.

The key here is not so much avoiding debt but managing it well so you don’t get in too deep. A long range plan is a good idea.

This juggling act is standard practice for most families, especially younger ones.

Now let’s look at the government, which is supposed to maintain some basic services for its people, just like Mum and Dad do for their kids.

Which begs the question:  why do they have this single-minded obsession with getting into surplus? With an attitude like that something has to give.

So what will give? You guessed it. Dear old average Mr and Mrs Citizen. Certainly not the corporations.

So, does cutting essential expenditure on schools, hospitals, infrastructure and so on in pursuit of a balanced budget make sense?

Does cutting the corporate tax rates so government is receiving less funds to spend make sense?

I think it does to the government and the corporations lobbying for the tax cuts but not to the average punter trying to get by.

I would have thought that having poorly educated people who are unhealthy and living with crumbling public infrastructure would actually weaken the economy, not strengthen it.

Wouldn’t having a productive, vibrant and dynamic workforce eventually take care of any deficit?

Who knows? I certainly don’t, I’m still confused.

I think the answer to all those questions I posed is: it depends on who you are talking to. What makes sense to the economists and the politicians may not actually make sense to anyone else.

Sorry about that.