[roc]

> "We can't have everyone expecting to consume all their resources in the future, because then we're wasting our capacity to produce resources in the present."

Very true.

That said, there is something inherently noble about saving. Life is unpredictable and retaining your ability to weather some reasonable fraction of bad times on your own is the most base expression of a person's ability to contribute positively to a cooperative society.

If someone can't save to a reasonable degree, they simply can't be trusted to engage society in good faith. To vote responsibly, to participate without causing undue costs on everyone else, etc.

This isn't to say that more savings is equivalent to more nobility. Nor anything like that. But there is a reasonable level of saving that, when the drive isn't present, is of very real social concern and should not be allowed to pass as a neutral behavior.

To clarify: this isn't to say that low net savings at some given point is a fault. Again, life is unpredictable and a bad hand may have been dealt early in the game, or a string of bad hands beyond any reasonable expectation. It's the desire and effort and discipline expended toward (re)building that reasonable level of savings that society should incent and recognize as noble and good.

[eli_gottlieb]

The traditional adage for proper saving was to have six months of living expenses in liquid savings as a "rainy day fund". After that, tradition holds you can safely indulge yourself, or save for long-term expenses like cars, houses, college educations, or entrepreneurship.

Back before this Depression, the notion that a responsible person could or should hold two or three years of living expenses as liquid savings was absurd. Saving that much was hoarding, and prevented you from building up savings for your long-term goals or capital for your ventures.

Now every 6-month ant is suddenly being lectured on their grasshopper-hood by 3-year ants? Bullshit.