What does "moving spending from the future to the present" actually mean in Uber's case?
For many kinds of spending, the future and the present aren't in competition. Keeping cars and people idle today won't result in more cars and labor available tomorrow.
If Uber weren't around, maybe the people writing software and driving cars could be doing something more useful. But that's competition between two different investments in the present, not between the future and the present.
If anything, low interest rates encourage people to speculate on bets that might pay off later rather than on surer bets that will pay off sooner. So that's the (possibly mythical) future competing with the (actual) present.
It means that instead of saving money to be spent later e.g. in retirement, the money is being spent right now in the hope of positive (inflation beating) ROI later.
But what if those investments don't work out? Then you have no savings and won't be able to spend money in the future.
Being able to save money for the long term is fundamental in a society that has long lifespans. Unfortunately government policy is to essentially forbid saving, because forcing people to "invest" their savings pumps employment and GDP stats, which is largely how their success is measured.
For many kinds of spending, the future and the present aren't in competition. Keeping cars and people idle today won't result in more cars and labor available tomorrow.
If Uber weren't around, maybe the people writing software and driving cars could be doing something more useful. But that's competition between two different investments in the present, not between the future and the present.
If anything, low interest rates encourage people to speculate on bets that might pay off later rather than on surer bets that will pay off sooner. So that's the (possibly mythical) future competing with the (actual) present.