> 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 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.