“Saving” ≠ “Saving Resources”*
Many economists mostly the freshwater/neoclassical/supply-side/conservative types, but also many on the left hold in their heads a very peculiar model of how economies work. Its a model of a barter/real-goods economy in which money only plays the role of convenience. ... That mental model, which is so widely prevalent, is a fundamental error of composition: confusing the individual with the aggregate. (And a confution of money-saving and real saving.) Sure, youve saved money for your (or your great-grandchildrens) future. And when you dont get a massage, others can sign up for that time slot, or buy a massage for a lower price. This is about competition among individuals, not how many resources we as a society produce and consume. If we all consume less, as a society we produce (and save) less both for current consumption and for future production.
So in a very real (dynamic) sense, its the savers who are taking resources out of society. (And in a somewhat abstract sense, you can imagine those foregone resources being stored, hoarded, and rendered impotent in ever-growing and largely inert Cayman-island bank accounts.)
This is not really revelatory; I know these economists understand the paradox of thrift. But they ignore and eschew it in their real-good, barter-based mental economic models. I would suggest that the explanation for this error of composition is revealed by Scotts words: morally grotesque. Moralistic beliefs about how individual humans should behave make it impossible for many economists to embrace an aggregate economic reality of which they are fully cognizant.
http://www.asymptosis.com/saving-?-saving-resources.html