When an economy's health is largely measured by movement of money, this does in fact help. If that were the only or best metric. In a consumption-oriented economy it may be considered that.
Creating things that last years, decades, generations, doesn't keep the economy "moving" in this sense. It can cause some sectors to fail (a sort of boom-bust). If you create a near perfect product that lasts decades, you have an immediate need to ramp up production (to meet demand). Once the demand tapers off due to market penetration, growth slows, and then you shrink--potentially rapidly. If the product doesn't expire frequently (break, wear out, get lost, something) and is a non-consumable good, then your production needs to drop off or you need to make different things.
I worked for an employer once that was in that situation. I saw it coming, but they straight up lied to the staff about what was coming up, how the future was great. Then we went from $500 million/year in revenue to $150 million/year because our massive ramp-up for production succeeded, now our product was in every system it needed to be in. New systems are made relatively slowly (big things, like airliners, but also smaller like military ground vehicles), and only needed our parts for maintenance (breakdown after ~10 years; maybe not break but need replacement/servicing) and the less frequent new production.
By some metrics, this was a failure of the company (in fact, the division was sold off some time later). But it actually succeeded, it needed to pivot to maintenance and divert other resources to engineering other solutions (or let them go, which is what happened to many of them). They actually have pivoted, I'm told, at least some parts of it. They're doing more diverse sets of safety critical systems, including getting into the consumer ground vehicle market now. That need to pivot should have been obvious, but for some reason it wasn't to many of my peers, and the management ignored it (willfully) at least in their presentations to us.