Or does that already exist, I just don't know it?
Maybe it's not just one-dimensional though, i.e., it could matter where exactly spending occurs.
It's pretty obvious that some uses of money are more useful than others - if the state spent large amounts of money on buying snow and storing it in the sun, that's not going to have the same kind of effect as spending the exact same amount of money on building new roads. But beyond obviously silly examples, no one can really agree on even the basics of the effects of government spending in other areas.
For example, a question like "if the government pays very large pensions and social aids, does that increase the economy as much as spending the same amount of money on subsidizing private business?" is extremely divisive in economic circles - with opposing schools of economics claiming opposite results as the "obvious scientific answer".
Also I'd say the balanced budget "extreme" is more directly analogous to maintaining a balance of calories in versus out, not starvation.
There Is Always a Well-Known Solution to Every Human Problem—Neat, Plausible, and Wrong
> It's also obvious to anyone, that just like eating too many calories, it's much eadier to overspend than to underspend.
You accidentally came up with the best possible illustration for the topic, and it's a really good illustration that actually goes against your argument:
- If you eat too much, you'll get fat and unhealthy.
- If you eat too little, you'll die from starvation.
And you're right, it's exactly the same for government spending: if the government spends too much, it's not good, but if it's spends too little the economy's dead.