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

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.