• Video
  • 5 minutes

60 second adventures in economics: The Paradox Of Thrift

Updated Tuesday, 18th September 2012
Is it better to save or to spend? According to Keynes, if you don't spend, you're going to make the economy even worse.

This page was published 9 years and 4 months ago. Please be aware that due to the passage of time, the information provided on this page may be out of date or otherwise inaccurate, and any views or opinions expressed may no longer be relevant. Some technical elements such as audio-visual and interactive media may no longer work. For more detail, see our Archive and Deletion Policy.

Transcript: Much like a child getting his pocket money, one of the biggest economic questions is still whether it’s better to save or spend.

Free-marketeers like Hayek and Milton Friedman say that, even in difficult times, it's best to be thrifty and save.

Banks then channel the savings into investment, in new plants, skills and techniques that let us produce more. And even if this new technology destroys jobs, wages will drop, and businesses hire more people – so unemployment falls again.

Simple. At least in the long run... But then a "live-fast-die-young" kinda chap called John Maynard Keynes cheerfully pointed out that “in the long run we're all dead”.

So, to avoid the misery of unemployment, the government should instead spend money to create jobs.

Whereas if the government tightens its belt when people and businesses are doing the same, less is spent, so unemployment gets even worse. That is the paradox of thrift.

So instead they should spend now and tax later when everyone's happy to pay - Though making people happy to pay tax was something even Keynes didn't solve.


Ratings & Comments

Share this free course

Copyright information

For further information, take a look at our frequently asked questions which may give you the support you need.

Have a question?