# Intertemporal redistribution

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intertemporal-redistribution/503891>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [July 22, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intertemporal-redistribution/503891 "2009-07-22T19:41:45Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\
**Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intertemporal-redistribution/503891/21 "2009-07-23T02:40:53Z")

</div>

> [@athelas](#):
>
> Nope, again, you need to think about the sliding scale. Along our current trajectory, standards of living will improve. There exists a quantity of investment less than our current amount that still supports an increase in the standard of living, merely slower. If you cannot see those two points (just extrapolate from a point in time within the last 200 years!), then you cannot participate in this argument - you should start a thread arguing that we’re already on a downward trajectory. Of course then you’ll have to defend that claim.

I’m sorry, but your entire OP demonstrates such a lack of understanding of basic economics that it is hard to even argue with rationally. How do you separate “standard of living” from “investments”? We can increase our standard of living by “spending more” and “investing less”? It either doesn’t make sense or you are using these definitions incorrectly. Where are we getting this money to spend? What are we spending it on?

How do you think the “future” will invent flying cars and whatnot if we cripple our economy today by effectively printing money so we can consume useless crap instead of investing in the future?

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intertemporal-redistribution/503891.md?page=1)