The terms here are muddled, but what the hell, I'll go ahead and try and answer. For what it's worth, the parent comment isn't particularly well defined either.

The terms here are muddled, but what the hell, I'll go ahead and try and answer. For what it's worth, the parent comment isn't particularly well defined either. First, if we define "the economy" as GDP [1] (a generally poor approximation, but still better defined than a vague "the economy" entity), spending tautologically boosts "the economy". It either falls under the "private consumption" or "gross investment" part of the equation. Now, I'll try and respond to your analysis point by point. > Because investing boosts the economy Again, we're on solid ground here if we're considering "the economy" to mean "GDP" > and spending reduces the potential for investiments Woah, hold on there. This assertion doesn't make sense from several perspectives. First, the economy isn't some zero-sum game where players must choose between spending and "investiments". Spending by one party can be converted into productive investments by another. e.g. if people start buying a ton of G.I. Joe action figures, the maker of G.I. Joe Figurines can convert that capital inflow into a factory. In addition, many forms of consumer spending are investments from their perspective. A new washing machine frees productive time that can then be spent e.g. learning a trade. A new car might enable them to find new jobs or reduce their maintenance expenses on their current car. > so the picture is at least more complex than that. Right, but generally when parties are producing things other people want to spend money on, the economy is "working". The corollary is that when nobody is willing or able to spend money on new goods, the economy is probably not healthy. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP