|
|
|
|
|
|
by nosianu
2656 days ago
|
|
|
On the level of the economy there is no "saving" (ignoring small things like leaving resources under ground for later instead of digging them up now). What is produced now is consumed now, especially services. Governments may keep strategic reserves e.g. of oil or some basic foods but that's outside the economy, that's (obviously) not added to by "saving for retirement" and all the other kinds of "saving" that individuals are encouraged to do. Just think about it for a moment, what it actually means when people "save". The future economy certainly doesn't need that money, it's used in the current economy and not buried underground. Not to mention that money, being completely virtual (which is a good thing IMO), never is a problem - unless the government (or the world) messes up big time (like in the 1930s). Businesses don't need anybody's "savings" either, banks create money (through debt) if a lender, especially a business, has a good plan. So again, just take a moment to think about what it means when everybody is encouraged to "save". One aspect is - do those with any power (and I don't mean this politically, simply that different people have different roles and positions) really want everybody to save? Because if everybody does it the economy goes down. One person's expenses are another person's income. However, having this "you don't save!" sure is great to have to throw into conversations to show "it's your own fault". Of course, that's not the intention why "you must save" is kept, I don't think anybody (of those who are relevant) consciously thinks like that. Overall though "saving" helped lower the government's role and funnel lots of money streams through a thriving and ever increasing financial industry. If the government actually wanted people to consume less they could have achieved that decades ago. |
|
|
Saving is literally keeping money to use it at a later date. So how will you retire without saving? Are you planning on working until you’re dead?