> I'm so confused as to why some spending in your economy are "good" and why some spending is "bad". Your terms, not mine. There would be no point in producing

> I'm so confused as to why some spending in your economy are "good" and why some spending is "bad". Your terms, not mine. There would be no point in producing and in expanding production, if we weren't going to consume. > How are you discounting the net economic gain from service jobs, but not discounting the net economic gain of a reinvested dividend? One expands the level of production and the other doesn't. I'm not discounting them in a moral sense, though. > I'm arguing against your insistance that service jobs are zero-sum which is patently false. I said that if there were only enough production to equal consumption, it would be zero sum in the net. In other words, the economy would not grow. > For instance, if I clean your home, landscape your yard, or do your laundry, it frees up your time to do something else more productive. Yep, agreed. But if instead of doing something productive with my extra time, I work on a government boondoggle project like digging a ditch that isn't needed, there would be no net growth in the economy from that, because what is happening (within the confines of the scenario) is purely consumption. Anyway, hope I don't sound too terse, this is a fun and interesting discussion and you are raising good points.