sleeper;1058966 wrote:I just find it odd you don't apply a literal sense to saving(because it doesn't fit your argument) but then chose a literal sense for buying/consumption.
Actually, the reason I didn't apply the most literal view to saving wasn't because it didn't fit my argument.* It actually does.* Saving, in the most basic and literal sense (the simplest one) does not help the economy.* I used the sense I did because the statement of yours to which I was replying used it.* I was, essentially, appealing to your own terms.* You stated that saving was good for the economy because banks could invest the savings.* I was simply pointing out that it isn't the saving that helps the economy.* It's the spending and investing by the bank that helps the economy.
The whole transfer of wealth throughout the economy can be applied to my view as well.* Either way, the flow of the currency is what sustains the economic cycle.
sleeper;1058966 wrote:I guess when I think of savings, I take it is consuming less now to have the ability to consume more in the future.
Why the need to consume more later, though?* Starve the economy now in order to gorge it later?* Why not just spend consistently and just stay within your means?
Ultimately, the only problem that has resulted from spending in our country has been spending beyond our means.* So long as one spends within his means, whether it is to have the neighbor cut his lawn or the cougar across the street urinate on him, it does zero to hurt the economy and helps to varying degrees, because it continues to sustain the cash flow.
Think of the economy like the cardiovascular system.* The system can have the same amount of blood throughout it at all times, but if a clot causes it to stockpile in a certain area, thus preventing it to flow through the rest of the body, the rest of the body suffers.
sleeper;1058966 wrote:Saving is good for the economy because it raises available funds for more investment and cheaper loans to the doers of this country.
What you're describing here isn't saving, though.* When you loan or invest money, you technically spend it (just with an agreement to receive a return).* Thus, it is the SPENDING of the saved money that benefits the economy.* Not the saving itself.
sleeper;1058966 wrote:It also helps provide a buffer for people when they hit hard economic times ...
This is good for the individual and his/her household.* It is negligable to the economy as a whole.
In addition, if one has been responsible enough to have a savings, but he still has extra finances, why would it not then be acceptable to buy what he doesn't need?
sleeper;1058966 wrote:... and lowers the burden on society to bail out unfunded debts from irresponsible lending.
It isn't the society's responsibility to bail them out.* That's the problem with how things are happening at the moment.
sleeper;1058966 wrote:Those shocks are much more detrimental to the economy than people not consuming as much as they possibly can.
Oh, to be sure.* But the principle that we are obligated to bail anyone out is the flaw in the model ... the spending beyond the means, to keep with prior terms.* Spending the money one has is not the problem.* Spending the money one DOESN'T have is the problem.
sleeper;1058966 wrote:It's unsustainable ...
Spending the money one DOES have on anything is not unsustainable.* Ever.* That's not even economics.* It's math.
sleeper;1058966 wrote:... it time we start changing the culture of this country.* I'm not saying let's be hard nose savers and only buy food and shelter, but a $500 computer window for your kitchen is a waste of money, which is my point.
Why draw the line where you draw it?* You've just asserted that there is one by saying that it's okay not to be strictly necessity-spending driven, but that there is a limit.
I would suggest that the limit to what we should spend is that which we can afford.* Safeguard yourself with some savings, if it helps you feel more secure.* Spend it all, if you think you can.* Either way, don't spend what you can't afford to spend, and don't expect a dime of help if you do.* People doing THAT is what is unsustainable.
Ultimately, your point is subjective.* You are free to think that way and run your own house that way (under the belief that there is a line on how to spend your money, despite no empirical or philosophical facts to suggest as much), but your subjective opinion on the matter holds no logical merit to be adopted by anyone else.
