We may need to have professional consumers. No irony intended. Of course this may need to be a government paid position.

Avem rosea photoshopicus

So what will happen to US GDP where 70% is consumer driven; perhaps a negative income tax like Nixon (?) suggested?

Somewhere I saw a ranking of most powerful people on the planet.

1. Putin
2. Xi Jinping or POTUS

I think the rational was, just because you are the chief executive of the most powerful nation doesn't necessarily make you most powerful, given possible checks on your power from other branches of your government.

Regarding the picture that mentions QE and the t***sfer of wealth to Wall Street:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/7kvoos/is_the_increase_in_stock_prices_since_2010_an/
wherein is asked, "Is the increase in stock prices since ~2010 an inflationary effect of monetary policy?"
and further, "If it is, what are the secondary effects? It seems like property prices have been climbing in many parts of the country while consumer prices and wages generally haven't. Could this also be an effect of QE? It seems like institutional investors are more likely to buy up property than bread and milk."
This also addresses QE and inflation:
https://www.researchaffiliates.com/en_us/publications/articles/364_whats_up_quantitative_easing_and_inflation.html

Unsurprisingly, your picture blamed Obama for the "greatest t***sfer of wealth in history", apparently unaware that QE1 was a Fed policy delcared in Dec 2008 before Obama took office and before he promoted Yellen to chair.

My point was to warn you that you have wandered into the Land of Trolls and seem to have no defense against them. You seem to be particularly defenseless against Loki.
But then, Loki is the Mother of Trolls:
http://www.certainly-strange.com/?p=385

I listened then checked out this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15ry4x/how_accurate_is_this_eye_witness_account_of/
You might try reading a bit of it.

[Irony Warning]
Yes, I never heard any criticism of Obama and still haven't.

Glaucon wrote, "Take a course..."
You have no idea how funny this is to me.

In writing my example, I was almost certain that if I wrote about "hand slapping", a trained psychologist would say something to the effect that positive reinforcement is better for modifying behavior than punishment.
I wrote about "hand slapping" and got something like the result I expected.
So, "certainty of consequences" (i.e. some knowledge of psychology and online give-and-take) , aids in forming informed behavior (led to this response to your request for an example).
I must admit, a rather twisted example.
My initial, "But certainty of consequences, aids in forming informed behavior." seems now a rather obtuse way of saying, "Knowing what will happen, helps one act knowingly". [Irony Warning] A very profound indeed.

I think most of the inhabitants of OPP may be descended from trolls (I know I seem to have some of the characteristics of one). I choose to believe this (troll descent), rather than believe all the silliness spouted on OPP is anything other than troll droppings. Too believe otherwise is too depressing. Sad.

Relevant to this:
http://www2.idehist.uu.se/distans/ilmh/Ren/flor-mach-mattingly.htm
which speaks to the possibility that Machiavelli was using irony in The Prince.
A quote:
In the Discorsi he wrote, "We know by experience that states have never signally increased either in territory or in riches except under a free government. The cause is not far to seek, since it is the well-being not of the individuals but of the community which makes the state great, and without question this universal well-being is nowhere secured save in a republic.... Popular rule is always better than the rule of princes."

If one knows one will get a cookie by reaching in the cookie jar, then ...
If one knows one will get a hand slapped by reaching in the cookie jar, then ...
In these circumstances one's behavior is informed.
If one is uncertain of the presence of cookies or hand slappers, then ...
In this circumstance one's behavior is less informed.

Wondering at the appellation, I googled Glaucon and found this:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plato/rep/rep0200.htm
Wherein is found, "For Glaucon, who is always the most pugnacious of men..."
But also:
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/r/republic/character-analysis/glaucon
Wherein is found:
Glaucon, the "owl-eyed" one, is said to be him "who can see in the gathering twilight." His naming may suggest a kind of Platonic banter, because Glaucon certainly has difficulty in perceiving parts of Socrates' argument, particularly the analogies. For example, when Socrates in Book II is trying to elucidate the character of the ideal Guardian, he says that a well-bred dog has the qualities of a philosopher, and Glaucon admits that he is confused. Then Socrates explains that a family dog and a philosopher share a common trait, and that common trait is knowledge: The dog knows an acquaintance and does not attack, but the dog does not know a stranger and attacks. Glaucon says that he has never thought about that trait in a dog, which bespeaks a curious ignorance of dogs generally and a potential danger for a budding thinker.

But certainty of consequences, aids in forming informed behavior.

From:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/h**e
Definition of h**e
1 a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
b : extreme dislike or disgust : antipathy, loathing - had a great h**e of hard work
2 : an object of hatred - a generation whose finest h**e had been big business —F. L. Paxson

So how might we determine if one is expressing intense hostility and aversion? Insulting, abusive, or highly critical language might be an indicator.

A sampling from:
S. Maturin - mob, fools, black-hearted, loser, abusers, slimy, stupid
Glaucon - obsessing

Another, more subtle, way to express hostility is irony. For example, expressing concern when no real concern is present. Irony is subtle because intent is hidden by its obvious opposite.

In a discussion about Obama, it should not be surprising to find that those who think Obama caused or will cause injury will express intense hostility and aversion. In response, those who favor Obama, might also express intense hostility and aversion to Obama critics.

In a discussion about Trump, one might expect opposite reactions.

In either case, perhaps we should remember the non-scriptural saying, "Love the sinner, h**e the sin".
Or (Only slightly tongue-in-cheek) maybe remember, “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to h**e. H**e leads to suffering.”

I think you may be overestimating the influence of state government.