> On the spending side, we need to account for whether the goods we're consuming are rivalrous or non-rivalrous, as well as all the externalities from consumpti

> On the spending side, we need to account for whether the goods we're consuming are rivalrous or non-rivalrous, as well as all the externalities from consumption, both positive and negative. This part has really shaped the way I see the world since I read this article a few years ago. When we talk about stimulus programs, we need to think about where that money goes. If you're encouraging people to buy new cars, then this carries quite some negative externalities as it eats into Earth's budget for nonrenewable resources and emissions. If it goes into services (say, personal training), then that kind of spending is pure good. > If no one consumed anything above basic subsistence, we'd have a lot less economic growth, fewer innovations, and inferior technology (including medical technology). I take issue with the use of the term "economic growth" like it's a self-evident goal. The problem is when it's measured in GDP -- ie., spend more to make the chart look better. But in that case, we fall into the fallacy of ignoring externalities.