The article has a lot of problems. It tries to conflate "net producer"="net saver"="morally good" but this is not clear at all. 1. If everyone is a net saver y

The article has a lot of problems. It tries to conflate "net producer"="net saver"="morally good" but this is not clear at all. 1. If everyone is a net saver you get paradox of thrift [0]. 2. For every buyer there is a seller. Being a net seller depends on somebody being a net buyer... it is strange to say "i am moral by depending on somebody being immoral" 3. As others pointed out, distribution of wealth is a critical component as it grants influence multipliers to people. It is easy to pigeon hole majority into having no money (and thus no spending choice) by hoarding all of the money (especially when the "service" you offer is arbitrage, which doesn't increase net real commodities). 4. Rather than thinking about producers/consumers, it is probably more useful to think in terms of utility [1]. Spending money can increase overall utility (most clearly -- direct investment in a utility increasing business). The growth in overall utility can actually increase total production (which the author equates with "good") despite his argument totally missing this. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility