Many economists (particularly those subscribing to the so-called "Keynesian" theory or school of economics), take the view that the allocation cycle can be encouraged by "increasing" consumer demand - primarily through government action and forced "redistribution" of wealth.

Under the Keynesian macro-economic model, government spending and intervention in the market is justified under the rubric of "putting more spending power into the hands of consumers", and thus leading to a stimulation and increase of economic activity.

Setting aside for the moment the reality that such interventionist action almost invariably leads to inflation and additional taxes that tend to DECREASE the net spending power of consumers (either by decreasing the amount of money that consumers have, or by decreasing the value of the money they do have), putting more "spending power into the hands of consumers" through coercive programs of targeted government regulation and "tax and spend" (actually borrow, tax, and spend) programs won't necessarily put more dollar returns into the hands of investors, and thus will not ultimately encourage investment.

If the "stimulated" consumer activity occurs in the face of rising prices and rising taxation, the investor - who is at the end of the counterclockwise flow of dollars back through the market - may get no actual increase at all, and may in fact end up with less.

If the investments of the investor cannot be made more profitable, there is no incentive for the investor to make addtional investments, either in improvements or innovation in production, distribution, or services.  Human well-being is not advanced.

Instead of the investor saying, "I will accept less now so that I can have more tomorrow", the investor will say, "Why should I invest now and thus accept less than I can afford, when by investing I will likely NOT have more tomorrow?  Perhaps I had better not invest my savings in future production.  That way I can at least have and enjoy what I can afford today."