If you need a computer right now, you'll buy it now. But overall, people only really need a handful of things, like sustenance, shelter, healthcare etc. No one needs some cheap trinkets from China or whatever. We're just trained to covet Stuff.

Economic theories or policies can't be based on the expectation that people are some kind of spending-automatons that will spendspendspend all the money they have, forever and ever, because inflation encourages them to.

A wise little worker ant will set aside quite a large percentage of his income, just in case a serious need for money arises.

The wise little worker person, on the other hand, will produce a production P, and get in return some money. Part of that money he will use for consumption C, and part of it he will set aside for savings S. But what he sets aside is NOT production, as in the case of the ant, it is just money - that is, unless the wise little worker person isn't so wise and actually stashes food or car parts or something like that.

The percentage of his production that he is not consuming (after having bartered it through the mean of money) is either going to the consumption C of somebody else, to the accumulation of capital (ie investment goods, thus investment I) or to the actual stashes of our world - stocks S.

If you think not in terms of money, but in terms of actual goods, you should agree that P = C + I + S (everything that is produced either goes to consumption, investment (capital) or stocks).

Now, what happens if C goes globally down, because everybody becomes a wise little worker person? In the immediate, S goes up - the "wise little worker ant" effect, if you will. But soon after, companies that create consumption goods reduce production - because nobody needs big stocks of consumption goods. Now, that could be compensated by increased production by companies that create investment goods - but who is going to request those investment goods, if it looks like people globally want to consume less?

So, what will actually happen is that C goes down, I stays the same or goes down, and after a little time P goes down. And our wise little worker person will lose his job, because less production + increased productivity (technology) = less jobs.

Now, notice that this works on a global scale. On a local scale, it can happen that C + I + S > P - this is for example currently true for the US, and in the long run US citizens will have to decrease their consumption, because that is overconsumption is only compensated by a billion wise little worker ants somewhere else who are actually lending part of their production to the US, in exchange of fiat money. But the decrease of consumption in the US has to be compensated by an increase elsewhere - otherwise, our wise little worker people will discover that ant-economy doesn't work for them.

> In the immediate, S goes up - the "wise little worker ant" effect, if you will. But soon after, companies that create consumption goods reduce production - because nobody needs big stocks of consumption goods.

Again, people will - and should - buy things they need. They may also buy some things they want, if they can afford them. If people stop buying Company X's products, then it will decrease capacity, and possibly go bankrupt, etc. There's nothing wrong with that.

You may decide to start producing and selling buckets of feces, but even though selling three hundred million of them at 50 dollars each would have a positive effect on the economy, it doesn't mean buying one would make any sense for anyone.

Our economies can't keep "growing" exponentially for all eternity, and that's alright. Nothing has been fixed since 2008, and the Status Quo's attempts at whipping up another housing bubble and getting us spending-automatons to spendspendspend are increasingly ineffective.

But the transition to a happy degrowth FOR SURE can't happen with simple market mechanisms. At least you need to limit the working hours. At worst you need a completely controlled economy. Technological innovation + free market + degrowth = massive and unsustainable unemployment, that's for sure.

My position is that of common sense.

That seems like a poor example since the cost of technology is constantly decreasing.

People still buy stuff even though they could wait because they need (or want) it.

Waiting longer means a decrease in consumption, and less (aggregate) consumption means less (aggregate) production, which also means less total jobs even if productivity is stable (not to mention if it is increasing, as it is because of technological innovation).