Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> It _doesn't_ make sense. How is consumption on the income side of the equation? And even if that somehow did make sense, who is to say the consumption on the income side is the same as the consumption on the spending side such that they balance out?

The model they are using is a simplified macroeconomic model. In their model, they are simply saying that when you account for Income--the total amount of money earned across the entire economy--it can only fall into two mutually exclusive buckets. Either the income is related to Consumption (purchasing goods and services), or Saving (as you mention, deferred spending--money in banks, or surpluses in the budget for states etc.--anything that is not in the consumption bucket).

> who is to say the consumption on the income side is the same as the consumption on the spending side such that they balance out?

By definition, it has to be. The way national income accounting works is that you can look at things from the perspective of expenditures or income. Since GDP is total output and total income, the total amount of consumption is the same, which is why it drops out in the equation from their model.



So in this simplified model, consumption is like a mobius strip in that while the mobius strip only has one side, income can only come from the consumption from spending.

The fact that they included it on both sides of the equation seems pointless, then, and only serves to confuse.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: