[nathan_compton]

Pretty sure it does - if you split that "glut" up evenly across the population of, say, earth, I'm pretty sure they would find more than "marginal returns" on its expenditure - perhaps not in the form of literal investments in monetary instruments, though. When its concentrated in the hands of a few, its marginal value is very small. The very wealthy aren't looking to spend that money on like actually useful things like health care or paying off their student debts or housing or education. They want to get returns.

The world would be a better place if that money was in the hands of more people.

If you ask non-wealthy humans, there is plenty of stuff to spend money on. It only looks like a glut if you're a rich person.

[throwaway34241]

A lot of the things you are talking about are spending. I think the savings glut theory is specifically about the demand for saving and loaning money for investments vs spending and borrowing money to invest, and there being a relatively high demand in dollars for the former. If you’re proposing decreasing saving via tax policy (on people with a high propensity to save) and increasing spending via fiscal policy, I think that fits right in.

Aside from wealth inequality increasing net saving (since wealthy people save a higher percent of their income), the trade deficit may also be a factor, since it means overall foreign countries are saving dollars (if they were spending the dollars we pay them on US goods there would be no trade deficit).

Low interest rates are a traditional way to discourage saving and encourage borrowing but interest rates are already quite low (real negative rates are a possibility with some inflation, but it’s questionable if investments that only make sense under negative rates are actually good investments).

[danans]

You and the parent are agreeing with each other.

There is a savings glut, but those savings are in accounts owned by large corporations and very wealthy individuals.