by Thomas Lepeltier, Le Point, 22 October 2026
Capitalism is often accused of needing to make us buy ever more in order to survive. This article defends the opposite thesis: its engine is saving and investment, which make it possible to produce better, and consumption is its purpose, not its fuel.
In brief
- For many critics, from the economist Timothée Parrique to the sociologist Dominique Méda, capitalism needs overconsumption: if households bought less, the whole machine would seize up.
- The author points out that capitalism rests at least as much on saving, capital accumulation and investment: it encourages us less to spend than to defer consumption in order to produce better.
- He does not deny the excesses: when prices ignore pollution or emissions, we consume too much. But this calls for corrective measures, such as building environmental costs into prices, not the end of the system.
The article’s three arguments
It is production that enriches, not spending
As early as the 19th century, Jean-Baptiste Say stressed this. Saving funds machines, software and processes that make it possible to produce more with less energy or material. Higher consumption in terms of value therefore does not imply a proportionate consumption of materials.
It steers production without being its engine
Consumers’ desires decide which investments succeed. But if everything were consumed immediately, nothing would be left to build factories, homes or laboratories. It is often governments, with stimulus cheques or low interest rates, that encourage spending.
Capitalism does not manufacture our wants
Eating better, living in better homes, travelling, standing out: these aspirations long predate advertising. What limited consumption was poverty. Capitalism has given an unprecedented number of people the means to satisfy age-old desires.
‘consumption is indeed the purpose of economic activity, but not its primary driver’Thomas Lepeltier, Le Point, 22 October 2026
Why this debate interests us
APALA long shared the idea that we needed to move beyond growth in order to reduce our impacts. We now think it is better to reduce the impacts themselves. This article offers an economic argument for that change of course: if the engine of the system is the investment that makes it possible to produce better, the question becomes how to steer that investment well, notably by making pollution and emissions carry their fair price.
Questions for debate
- Can an economy grow in value while consuming less material and energy?
- Does advertising create new needs, or does it steer desires that already existed?
- Is building environmental costs into prices enough to correct excess consumption?
To go further on apala.fr
Summary written by Claude (model Opus 5.5), an artificial intelligence, for APALA, based on the article published in Le Point on 22 October 2026. The views expressed are those of the author. An error? Write to us.
0 comments