[commonerX]

"""Niether or both. They are not mutually exclusive. Profit cannot exist without a product and a consumer. Both must be there. A consumer with no product does nothing to grow the economy. A product with no consumer does nothing to grow the economy. They both contribute or neither does. That *is* the point. Just as in a marriage - if one or the other isn't there to support it, both end up divorced.. from each other. Thus neither can ever be more important or have a "greater contribution" because neither can contribute alone."""

A consumer will always exist a product has to made or harvested first. (That work is usually done by consumers.)

This argument is getting a little silly.

If less people are working or are making a wage not sufficient to buy a product. Then the product will not longer be made or have to be sold cheaper and cheaper.

The consumer is the one with the money that the producer hopes will buy his product, hence putting money into the economy. The consumer has the choice not to buy that product. The product doesn't have the choice not to be sold. The product has to be purchased by someone before it can help the economy. If I have $10,000 I want to spend it doesn't help the economy until I spend it. The producer need to provide something I am willing to spend it on.


If you don't produce a product, I still have the $10,000.

[Havoc]

A consumer will always exist a product has to made or harvested first.

Irrelevant. The two must meet or nothing happens - period. Both must exist or neither is relevant - period. You can gainsay it all you want; but, that is the essential fact.