> Speaking of gambling, you also left out theft and loss. Correct. Theft is included in GDP, as is spoilage. As I said, it doesn't matter how 'good' people's c

> Speaking of gambling, you also left out theft and loss. Correct. Theft is included in GDP, as is spoilage. As I said, it doesn't matter how 'good' people's consumption is, only that they consume. This being said, theft isn't ideal, because it could depress the prices for the items later on. Loss would be better. > You seem to be applying a macroeconomic template. Individuals can and do behave somewhat differently. That's correct, which is why the state - if it wishes to remain relevant - has to get them back in line, lest it be consumed by someone who does. > I don't have any responsibility to prop up your economy with my spending and you have no responsibility to prop up mine, but please do. If I spend less and you spend more, I hope you spend it on my services and goods, so I get your money and you get my designer throw pillows or whatever. You don't understand - it's not about "propping up an economy" - it's about making sure that people work. If you stop spending, there's a risk that it would cause you to stop working. This is the risk; the consumption itself is damaging for the economy, and it would be preferable that people lose their wages to less damaging forms of consumption (e.g. buying scalable forms of entertainment services) > The vast majority of the wealth of the wealthy is in unrealized gains which may be spent someday, it sounds like you're calling them economically unproductive. The money isn't economically unproductive, because money isn't what makes production, but people can be unproductive, and this is the risk. In practice, the losses from this are very small, because it's held by a rather small billionaire elite, and so the losses to rentiers don't actually end up in a lot of real-world consumption. > Desiring not to spend, and desiring not to earn, are vastly different. Different, perhaps, but they are brothers. Spending = earnings + borrowing, or, conversely, earnings = spending + saving. If you don't consume, your net saving goes up, and those savings are like a ticking time-bomb that can be sprung on the economy at any time to seriously cut the GDP. It's correct to say that you can spend less on petroleum and more on other stuff. It's even more correct to say that, from the macro-economic view, you have to. (And if you don't want, you will be forced to)