Dave hit the biggest part on the head…
Put more simply, it’s not that consumers don’t have money to buy all these “extra products” because they have no savings…think deeper than that. Savings represent extra resources..resources that are available due to underconsumption (that’s what saving is). So when entrepreneurs undertake projects because interest rates are lower, the implication is that there is a pool of resources available to actually use in their ventures. The problem is those resources don’t exist. It’s an illustion.
So again, it’s not that people don’t have money to buy products later on…it’s that the products don’t even get made…because the factories don’t even get finished. Mises used the analogy of starting construction on a house without having enough bricks to finish it. The amount of the house that you actually do build is representative of the amount of malinvestment that has taken place…the farther along you get, the more time and actual resources you’ve wasted in a project that physically cannot be finished.
And in fact this is exactly what we saw in markets like Las Vegas…where large scale casino projects still sit unfinished. Tom Woods covers this quite well in his book Meltdown.
The only other thing you might change is the part about how it’s “the price paid for prior credit expansion.” While that’s technically true, it’s generally better to stay away from that language, as it is often spun into a morality argument…the idea that you believe that the market misbehaved so now there are consequences. Like some sort of economic karma. Obviously that’s not at all the argument, but whether it’s spun into that on purpose, or that’s how it is genuinely interpreted, it’s best to just stay away from that kind of language.
If you need any more insight, these will certainly help: