>>Friends of mine would argue that all that money in bank vaults is "doing nothing useful". Is money supposed to have a lofty purpose? Or once it's made it safely (and legally) into someone's pocket, is it up to that someone to decide its best use?<<
It doesn't have a lofty purpose, it has an extremely practical purpose. It makes people work and keeps the economy stable. Amassing a great deal of wealth is simply a byproduct of how money works, the same way amassing fat is a byproduct of the way food works.
The wealth amassed is not doing anything usefull, so it makes sense to send a signifigant amount back into the economy. The only reason NOT to do so on a large scale is that money would lsoe some of it's effectiveness at luring people into work if we did, so we must limit the amount we take back into circulation.
>>I would argue that the wealthy (meaning the bulk of their number who gained their riches legally) drive our economy, and have not earned such envy, just because they understand compound interest.<<
That varies greatly, depending on the individual in question. But really, what the individual rich person is doing is irrelevant. The economy is only interested in how money is moving right now; and money that isn't moving isn't helping. If anything, taking money from the rich should help inspire them to stay in the game.
>>In an era in which the masses to go into debt more often than they save and invest, however, shouldn't the wealthy be our role models?<<
There's a reason everything we see encourages this kind of behavior. It's bad for the individual, but it's plenty good for the economy... up to a point at least, and we as a whole have not reached that point.
It doesn't have a lofty purpose, it has an extremely practical purpose. It makes people work and keeps the economy stable. Amassing a great deal of wealth is simply a byproduct of how money works, the same way amassing fat is a byproduct of the way food works.
The wealth amassed is not doing anything usefull, so it makes sense to send a signifigant amount back into the economy. The only reason NOT to do so on a large scale is that money would lsoe some of it's effectiveness at luring people into work if we did, so we must limit the amount we take back into circulation.
>>I would argue that the wealthy (meaning the bulk of their number who gained their riches legally) drive our economy, and have not earned such envy, just because they understand compound interest.<<
That varies greatly, depending on the individual in question. But really, what the individual rich person is doing is irrelevant. The economy is only interested in how money is moving right now; and money that isn't moving isn't helping. If anything, taking money from the rich should help inspire them to stay in the game.
>>In an era in which the masses to go into
debt more often than they save and invest, however, shouldn't the wealthy be our role models?<<
There's a reason everything we see encourages this kind of behavior. It's bad for the individual, but it's plenty good for the economy... up to a point at least, and we as a whole have not reached that point.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment