3 ms·

Saving doesn't always mean saving money but rather saving value Well, this is the crux of the issue. In the language I learned (British English) the word savin

Saving doesn't always mean saving money but rather saving value Well, this is the crux of the issue. In the language I learned (British English) the word savings does refer exclusively to cash. Investment is an entirely separate concept, as are assets. I would never consider a house to be savings, because savings are there to provide a buffer if your income suddenly drops below your structural spending level - the proverbial rainy day. Selling a house takes a very long time and has huge overheads, plus, of course, you still need somewhere to live. Unless your first reaction to e.g. losing a job is to immediately sell your house, your house is therefore not savings. Government bonds? Great until they default. Corporate bonds? Ditto. Growth stocks?!?! The things that can easily move in value 20% in a single day? That's not savings, that's an investment at best or a risky gamble at worst. Money is only valuable when it moves. No, money is a store of value, that's literally a part of the definition of what makes something money. It is valuable because it lets you obtain resources later, without having to barter for them at that exact moment. Money saved means you can lose your job and continue to buy things: that fact alone has value even if the money itself isn't moving right now. This really isn't hard to understand. The demonisation of savings in our society is one of the most severe problems we face, if not the most severe. It's impossible to have any kind of justice or stability in the world if nobody has any savings, because they convinced themselves a tech stock is the same thing.

kamyarg 7y ago
I wish I could upvote twice, this is so true. It is funny when people forget what money was meant to be; "a store of value".
- mcguire 7y ago
  A "store of value", like putting money under your mattress, is, economically speaking, useless.¹ Remember the categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." ¹ Beyond a point anyway. Keep 3 to 6 months' income readily available.
jay_kyburz 7y ago
I speak mostly British English here in Australia as well, and here and I believe most people would expect you to have your savings parked somewhere doing something. Having your house paid off or even paying down the mortgage or an investment properly is still considered saving. Anything that could be converted back to cash if needed.
Nursie 7y ago
> No, money is a store of value, that's literally a part of the definition of what makes something money. Not according to Merriam Webster - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/money https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/money Nor the OED - https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/money https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/money Nor Collins - https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/money https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/money In fact that little factoid you present is a hallmark of Austrian economic thinking and usually cryptocurrency enthusiasm...
mcguire 7y ago
"The demonisation of savings in our society is one of the most severe problems we face, if not the most severe." To an extent, you are right. Here in the US, anyway. But it is possible to go too far in the other direction as well. If all of your disposable money is going into savings, you have no need to borrow money, so the bank isn't making loans, so the interest rate you receive has to fall. More importantly, if you are not spending money, the people you aren't buying from have no incentive to invest. The result is a stagnant economy. Saving too much is almost as bad as saving too little.
- repolfx 7y ago
  I don't think there's any reason for an economy where people save responsibly to be stagnant. That's the error central bankers make. It's sort of like saying if you're not constantly taking ecstasy then your life is stagnant and boring - it might seem like that to someone coming down from an unsustainable lifestyle, but to people who aren't constantly on stimulants life seems just fine and not stagnant at all. That is, if you judge an economy purely on the basis of "how much stuff is getting done" without caring about what that stuff is, or whether it's actually useful, then yes confiscating savings and making it impossible to actually keep stable money anywhere (which is actually called "economic stimulus"), well, it will appear to make your economy more dynamic. If you start taking into account economic stability though, well, the highs and lows of boom/bust QE-driven economics don't look so great. So there's really no such thing as saving too much. How much to save is a very personal decision. If you over-save it means lost opportunities, unless you deliberately want to pass your wealth onto your children. But if you save too little, the results can be catastrophic unless the government bails you out, which creates the massive moral hazard that wrecks our global economy today.
QuesnayJr 7y ago
The exact opposite is true. Savers have been spoiled for generations because they got a positive return without doing any work, or bearing any risk. Those days have ended, at least in Europe. Nobody owes you a risk-free positive return. If investors don't need your money, then they don't need your money. Money is only a store of value over short time periods (and if inflation is high not even then). Money only has value because you can get it today and use it in transactions tomorrow. If you take that money and stick it in a mattress for a year, nobody owes anything for doing so.

kamyarg 7y ago

I wish I could upvote twice, this is so true. It is funny when people forget what money was meant to be; "a store of value".

mcguire 7y ago
A "store of value", like putting money under your mattress, is, economically speaking, useless.¹ Remember the categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." ¹ Beyond a point anyway. Keep 3 to 6 months' income readily available.

jay_kyburz 7y ago

I speak mostly British English here in Australia as well, and here and I believe most people would expect you to have your savings parked somewhere doing something. Having your house paid off or even paying down the mortgage or an investment properly is still considered saving. Anything that could be converted back to cash if needed.

Nursie 7y ago

> No, money is a store of value, that's literally a part of the definition of what makes something money. Not according to Merriam Webster - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/money https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/money Nor the OED - https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/money https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/money Nor Collins - https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/money https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/money In fact that little factoid you present is a hallmark of Austrian economic thinking and usually cryptocurrency enthusiasm...

mcguire 7y ago

"The demonisation of savings in our society is one of the most severe problems we face, if not the most severe." To an extent, you are right. Here in the US, anyway. But it is possible to go too far in the other direction as well. If all of your disposable money is going into savings, you have no need to borrow money, so the bank isn't making loans, so the interest rate you receive has to fall. More importantly, if you are not spending money, the people you aren't buying from have no incentive to invest. The result is a stagnant economy. Saving too much is almost as bad as saving too little.

repolfx 7y ago
I don't think there's any reason for an economy where people save responsibly to be stagnant. That's the error central bankers make. It's sort of like saying if you're not constantly taking ecstasy then your life is stagnant and boring - it might seem like that to someone coming down from an unsustainable lifestyle, but to people who aren't constantly on stimulants life seems just fine and not stagnant at all. That is, if you judge an economy purely on the basis of "how much stuff is getting done" without caring about what that stuff is, or whether it's actually useful, then yes confiscating savings and making it impossible to actually keep stable money anywhere (which is actually called "economic stimulus"), well, it will appear to make your economy more dynamic. If you start taking into account economic stability though, well, the highs and lows of boom/bust QE-driven economics don't look so great. So there's really no such thing as saving too much. How much to save is a very personal decision. If you over-save it means lost opportunities, unless you deliberately want to pass your wealth onto your children. But if you save too little, the results can be catastrophic unless the government bails you out, which creates the massive moral hazard that wrecks our global economy today.

QuesnayJr 7y ago

The exact opposite is true. Savers have been spoiled for generations because they got a positive return without doing any work, or bearing any risk. Those days have ended, at least in Europe. Nobody owes you a risk-free positive return. If investors don't need your money, then they don't need your money. Money is only a store of value over short time periods (and if inflation is high not even then). Money only has value because you can get it today and use it in transactions tomorrow. If you take that money and stick it in a mattress for a year, nobody owes anything for doing so.