Yes, more trade between economic actors is good for the economy. Consumption is not destruction, it’s consumption. Consuming a house by living in it is not the same as setting it on fire. Using more of a good or service that someone else provided does stimulate the economy by incentivizing that person to produce more. If there is no consumption then there is no incentive to produce beyond one’s immediate needs.
The only lie is that consumption and abundance is bad. Your example is not a representation of what you’re complaining about. No one would say that ordering a lot of food at a restaurant is bad for the economy or that it’s not objectively better if the restaurant is more successful and sells more food.
You’re projecting your assumptions and values by saying people “mindlessly” consume. The rational thing to do with rapidly depreciating money is to spend it as fast as possible, or as you would say “mindlessly” consume, IF that person does not know of a better use for that money. The irrational thing would be not to “mindlessly” consume and watch the money depreciate.
The economy is just people acting and interacting. More actions and interactions is generally a good thing. You have an issue with something, but the problem is not consumption.
They literally and explicitly incentivize consumption for its own sake. It’s backward.
Consumption isn’t *good for the economy,* it’s the other way around:
A *good economy* has healthy consumption.
That’s the problem, Keynesian economics has reversed causality. It’s not good for the economy that someone uses a house, whether they need it or not. It’s good because if they can afford it, it is an indication that significant value has been added to the economy.
It’s the same difference as saying “college degrees incentivize skilled workers,” and then just issuing college degrees to millions of people because now they’ll all go get skills.
I think you’re splitting hairs. Consumption is not a fiat phenomenon. Fiat does incentivize greater consumption in the short term.
“They” can also incentivize consumption in a hard money standard. Maybe what you’re getting at is subsidized consumption? I fail to see how someone working for money and then buying a good with that money in order to consume it is not objectively better for the economy.
I don’t see how that example reflects the reality of consumption between free economic actors. Sounds like you’re talking about governments either forcing or printing money so producers make goods and then giving people vouchers so they can consume those goods and calling it growth.
Thread collapsed
We consume crap products, because consuming them is better than holding the crap money.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
The specific problem is that consumption doesn’t need additional incentive (in the form of a depreciating currency)… consumption has its own natural incentive structures.
Right, and additional incentives are not needed for “mindless” consumption to take place. I brought up the fiat incentive to try to make sense of the original post, because it doesn’t otherwise
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
