This is the type of nonsense we get with the blind adherence to the consumption-spending fallacy ("Keynesianism"): "remote workers are 'contributing less to the infrastructure of the economy whilst still receiving its benefits'." Producing at lower cost = cnb.cx/35mNe7x
bad for the economy? 🤦♂️To these "analysts," people wasting less resources when producing (supposedly at the same level) need to be burdened with an extra tax to "make up for" (?) using less resources. Did anybody at @DeutscheBank think this through? If the problem is that they're
not spending enough to produce, i.e. that there is a higher output-input ratio (horror!), then they should, for the sake of consistency (and, from their POV, to stifle such economy-killing lower-cost production), also propose extra taxes for #innovation, #entrepreneurship, and
all other measures that may increase #productivity. Imagine focusing this blindly on consumption stats, presuming it is the only thing that matters, without considering the bigger picture or the implications. This is stupidity on stilts, the cart-horse world of fake economics.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
