3 ms·

Be that as it may, it's not the claim the article was making. The claim was that rich people don't lead to growth because much of their money sits idle, and thu

Be that as it may, it's not the claim the article was making. The claim was that rich people don't lead to growth because much of their money sits idle, and thus cannot "trickle down" by being used in the economy. The moral effects that you outline aside, you seem to agree that the portion of their money that the rich don't spend themselves, they're allowing to be spent by another person. Thus while you may dislike the moral implications, you seem to agree with my assessment that the claims of the article are incorrect.

asgard1024 12y ago
> you seem to agree that the portion of their money that the rich don't spend themselves, they're allowing to be spent by another person Not really. If I give you 1000$ it's a different thing than when I just lend you 1000$. In both cases you have discretion to spend it, but in the latter case, you have much less freedom, because you need to return it back (and more). What I am saying is that economy as a whole can store a large portion of money in such contracts, not really producing much of anything (because of the constraints placed to the borrower). Still, it's a rational thing to do for rich people because it allows to keep them power. So in this sense, the money are "idling" - by circulating around in contracts that have to be honored.