Yes, more trade between economic actors is good for the economy. Consumption is not destruction, it’s consumption. Consuming a house by living in it is not the same as setting it on fire. Using more of a good or service that someone else provided does stimulate the economy by incentivizing that person to produce more. If there is no consumption then there is no incentive to produce beyond one’s immediate needs. The only lie is that consumption and abundance is bad. Your example is not a representation of what you’re complaining about. No one would say that ordering a lot of food at a restaurant is bad for the economy or that it’s not objectively better if the restaurant is more successful and sells more food. You’re projecting your assumptions and values by saying people “mindlessly” consume. The rational thing to do with rapidly depreciating money is to spend it as fast as possible, or as you would say “mindlessly” consume, IF that person does not know of a better use for that money. The irrational thing would be not to “mindlessly” consume and watch the money depreciate. The economy is just people acting and interacting. More actions and interactions is generally a good thing. You have an issue with something, but the problem is not consumption.