Probably not, as terms like these carry many different interpretations, the source of much-debated but nebulous value. Nebulous because we failed to pre-establish a singular common understanding of the terms in question, and nebulous because the causal economic principles forming the supposed value of the terms are lacking or left open to wild speculation.
To use an analogy, a perceived understanding of cancer as a singular disease yields a fundamental misjudgment in medicine, and much speculation about a successful treatment trajectory. Instead, cancer is a suitcase term meant to describe many different conditions with merely similar consequences, yet very little causal connection in common.
Eerily enough, we attempt to treat the consequences of cancer with roughly the same single treatment protocol (radiation followed by chemo) by which we try to address the consequential malaise of economic systems with yet unknown cause (until now).
Hence a lack of understanding of terms by the general population, terms in themselves vague and dubious in meaning and effect, may not be such a bad thing after all. For it is high time to ditch the religion of voodoo economics that perpetuates the crystal ball failing to produce the predictable outcome those loose terms insinuate.
