No, Keynes&#x27; prideful workers certainly count as unemployed. They are actively seeking work, they just refuse to take work at wages that offend them.<p><i>Consumption must grow at the same rate as production, right? So either can be the limiting factor on economic growth, and investing at a rate that doesn&#x27;t match consumption growth is wasteful (it would be better for the economy if that money were expended on consumption instead), no?</i><p>Yes, it&#x27;s more or less true that consumption + investment = production. Investment is taking resources from consumption today in order to increase production in the future.<p>Let me make a software engineering analogy. Consumption = building cool, user visible features that product can show to upper management.<p>Investment = cleaning up tech debt, refactoring the code, or building massive infrastructure that (once complete) will enable many new features.<p>Product always wants new features. Whatever engineering can create, product will insist on deploying. If product insists on ignoring tech debt and refuses to invest in any infrastructure project, then eventually the rate at which new features are built will slow to a crawl. This is what happens when you shift from investment to consumption.<p>The idea of consumption increasing future wealth only applies in cases where production is below potential - where people could work but refuse to do so. The closest thing to stimulus I can cook up in my analogy is tricking lazy developers who refuse to work into actually working because you allow them to use node.js.