The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
Yeah, there is! It takes money out of the economy. Economics 101 - the health of any economy depends on the free and continual circulation of money from consumer to producer to employee. Any long term diminishment of the money supply, from excessive imports to excessive saving, is damaging to the economy. Any damage to the economy will, by definition, affect the poorest first and most enduringly. If by 'rich' we mean those that hoard wealth, and we surely do since nobody gets on the rich list by having outgoings commensurate with their income, then there is absolutely no doubt that they are damaging the economy to which they are in a parasitical relationship. One does not need to be a socialist or a liberal to simply do the math!
There is now a substantial number of people whose wealth exceeds the GDP of a large portion of the world's sovereign states so it's kinda hard to view that as 'nothing' even if the rest of your statement made sense - it doesn't, obviously. Governments are probably the single biggest contributors to keeping money 'alive' within their own economies. I trust you've not been drawn in by Tony Blair's ridiculous portrayal of those receiving welfare as 'economically' inactive because it's a patent untruth. A far greater proportion of the income of those on welfare is returned immediately into circulation than that of any other group. They literally cannot afford savings!
Wow, are you suggesting poverty is good for a healthy economy? What about the amount of debt the state incurs? Or when these same folks can't afford a 4k TV but borrow money and default on their loans? At least with being rich, you always buy what you can afford.
Wow, that's such a leap that I'm not sure I can I can even see how you got there.
As for national debt, it would be considerably reduced if one of the major routes to wealth was not tax avoidance. The state of the UK's coffers will certainly be helped by the agreement of Google this very weekend to pay 130 million great British pounds in back taxes. Whether the USA will ever get its farcical system by which a man with a billion dollars in the bank can pay less tax than one with just a thousand sorted out I'm inclined to doubt.
Buying stuff? The rich, ironically, are those who receive by far the greatest amount of stuff for free as 'gifts'. The value of the goody bag at the Oscars next month alone will be around 3 times the UK national average annual wage and not one of the red carpet dresses will have been paid for!
You seem to assume that the bulk of the wealth exists as cash. I'd bet it doesn't, I'd think it is represented by ownership of things, companies, real estate etc. All of which contribute to the economy.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
I'm not that naive (I hope) and I did avoid using the term. In economics 'money' is a more fluid term.
I can't agree that real estate necessarily contributes to the economy especially if purchased outright. You either live in it in which case it is essentially economically inactive or rent it in which case it is a net drain. Although I'm not particularly in favour of inheritance taxes, it is the economic status of land ownership which they are meant to address.
Equally there is a danger that for-profit companies in de facto monopolies (MS, Google in Europe, etc.) become money sinks taking far more out of the economy than they put in. Add to that that the degree to which your trade becomes money itself is proportional to personal wealth so that money is siphoned off into an exclusive club trading it between themselves (much in the manner of a giant ultra high-stakes poker game).
I am not arguing for equal distribution of wealth per se. I'm certainly no socialist. But there is no question that the existence of the super rich, whose personal wealth is so extreme that by 2014 the richest 67 people in the world commanded assets equivalent to those of the poorest half of the world's entire population (then 3.4 billion people) is a real problem for the economies both of the nations they inhabit and the world in general.
Anyway, the concept of Excessive Savings, for either the individual, and particularly for a nation as a society, is quite beyond my knowledge, education, and thinking.
It always seemed to me (like obvious, but I am ready to learn) that the absence of a strong solid savings base is generally a significant weakness for a society's economy, and about 100% true for the individual.
I'm pretty certain that most nations in the world today don't have an adequate savings base to promote a healthy economy, and that that is a significantly contributing factor in our current world's state of mess.
Then again, I am ready to learn about excessive savings, as it appears to be a central tenet of Keynesian theory.
Seriously, I posted a message to this forum simply to mention an article I published and it was marked as SPAM, yet this drivel continues to be displayed on the CP front page?
Honestly, CP should do a better job of this.
And, I know, someone is going to say I'm spamming by mentioning that mine is spam so I can spam mention my article spam and all the other spam things that spam people are going to spam say.
I spam the truth!!!
Am I funny yet?
Am I right yet?
Spam spam SPam sPAm spam spamming with spam and spam on the side of spam Spamaliciously spamariness with spam spam spam spam.
If you ain't adding, then you are taking away.
Can you help me transfer large shipment of gold out of my small country, comrade?
I have here vast levels of bullion I need to get out of under my kingship.
The rebels have taken over and with your help we can transfer these thousands of kilograms of bullion to a safe place. I look to the future of your great reply.
Sincerly, with hope of a new day,
King Angulam of Shizzilar,
Most honorable Sir of the Royal Hifflebothom,