There are two ways to understand the word “saving”. It is either:
(1) deferring the use of one’s purchasing power to a later date
(2) that part of the capital, labour and other existing resources of a community that are used to maintain and extend the productive apparatus of an economy.
If you confuse (1) with (2) you will never understand how an economy works. (1) is of course modern and Keynesian, while (2) is classical and Austrian.
But these things are very very difficult to keep straight in the midst of analysis unless you really have the distinction absolutely clear.
Let me therefore take you to a sad example of how these issues became muddled in the midst of an interview with an Austrian economist who was trying to explain (2) to someone who thinks only in terms of (1). This is the title, Our Obsession with Consumption — while Ignoring Saving and Investment — Is a Big Problem. I have adopted his explanation from his Austrian treatment and translated into how things would be looked at from a classical perspective.
In economics today very little attention is given to the role of savings. This is a very curious situation.
There can be no production without prior saving.
Nature on its own provides us with only very few consumer goods eg apples on a tree.
For anything more, we must first produce the goods that we then afterwards can consume.
But to produce these goods we must first devise and construct tools, instruments or machines.
But to devise and construct tools, instruments or machines we already need a stock of already existing tools, instruments or machines. This stock is what is meant by “saving”.
Without prior savings no increase of future consumption is possible.
But then the interviewer asks this question, which transfers the issue from (2) to (1).
Do the current saving systems for retirement in the West work? If not, with what should they be replaced?
Suddenly the issue is about the future real potential purchasing power that lies behind money saving in the present. And from there the conversation never gets back to the need to widen and deepen our productive capabilities. They do go on to discuss who should make the decisions on what capital to build but by then it is too late.
The real problem for me is that even the interviewer, who was trying to provide soft questions so that the issues could be explained clearly, was too muddled himself and never allowed the interview to go where it needed to go, so another opportunity to make things clear disappeared.