This analysis of "saving" convicts J.S. Mill of a double error in saying, "Everything which is produced is consumed; both what is saved and what is said to be spent; and the former quite as rapidly as the latter." In the first place, by showing that "saving," from the point of view of the community, generally means producing something incapable of present consumption, it proves that even if what is "saved" is consumed, it is not consumed as quickly as what is spent. Mill seemed to think that what was "saved" was necessarily food, clothing, and so-called finished goods, because "saving" to him was not a process, but a single negative act of refusing to buy. Because a man who has "saved" has command of an extra stock of food, etc., which he may hand over to labourers as real wages, he seems to think that a community which saves will have its savings in this form. We see this is not the case. Even where in a primitive society extra food is the first form savings may take, it belongs to the act of saving that this food shall not be consumed so soon as it was available for consumption. In short, Mill's notion was that savings must necessarily mean a storing up of more food, clothing, etc., which, after all, is not stored, but is handed over to others to consume. He fails to perceive that a person who saves from the social as opposed to the individual point of view necessarily produces something which neither he nor any one else consumes at once--_i.e._, steam engines, pieces of leather, shop goods. A "saving" which is merely a transfer of spending from A to B is obviously no saving from the point of view of the community to which both A and B belong. If A, who is said to save, pays wages to B, who makes a machine which would otherwise not have been made, when this machine is made something is saved, not before.