You most likely come across debates surrounding the idea of saving money as opposed to consuming on a fairly regular basis. To use slightly more academic terminology, we are essentially dealing with instant gratification on the one hand (consuming now, even if it means not setting anything aside or, worse yet, borrowing money) and delayed gratification on the other (deciding against consumption, hoping you'll be able to put that capital to better use and consume more in the future). Is saving money or consuming the "right" decision? As explained in this video... it depends on what's more important to us. If personal financial sustainability is our #1 goal, then saving (delayed gratification) is definitely the way to go. If the stability of the current financial system is our main goal, on the other hand, then a valid case could be made that consuming is "better" for society in its current form. In other words, we are dealing with a "Paradox of Thrift" situation, where something that is good for the individual (delayed gratification) is bad for society in its current form. But if society in its current form is so unsustainable that it needs perpetual and oftentimes debt-fueled growth, should we do everything we can to keep the proverbial bubble from popping or, on the contrary, move toward a more sustainable system sooner rather than later, even if there is a great deal of short to mid-term pain involved? That... is a topic for another video. For now, I've simply focused on explaining what instant and delayed gratification are all about :)