In the states it would be healthier and better for the economy in a long term perspective if consumers were saving more and consuming less
So you are essentially saying that producers should bear losses or withstand profits shrinking (since people would spend less and save more), and that would serve the economy better in the long run, right?
Am saying that going into debt to consume is extremely bad for the economy; nations that succeed like the USA before are nations of savers, producers, a stable country with a strong currency; you cannot consume with debt forever, it ends badly so the USA would fair better in long run if consumers were not going into debt to consume like it used to be; you use to save to buy something
You might have noticed that I didn't mean consumption financed by debt. Producers would have to take losses or see profits diminishing even if the decreasing consumption is directly financed by household earnings, right?
In order to be able to consume you have to produce wealth first and you have to produce
Producing come before consuming, no production no consumption; consuming is not hard, everyone can do it, being able to produce is what matters and being able to trade your time and skills for money is what able to you consume
Why do you shrink from answering my question? You can only save from money taken from your household earnings (you won't save from loans), that is money which you would otherwise spend on consumption. Please try to explain how this can be any good for the economy in the long run (as you previously claimed)?
