[orwin]

You're only 1/3 right. Saved money isn't lent, nor spent (lending is just creating money). It's invested, 95% in the secondary market (probably more in the US). If the secondary market isn't correlated to actual production (and nowadays, it actually isn't, even in mining, prospecting and future are the main beneficiaries, which to me is crazy. One of the only exceptions is the energy sector), that money won't create real jobs.

[nickpp]

What do you think those sellers on the secondary markets do with the money they get?

At the end of the investing chain it’s always jobs, products and services - or bank deposits.

Any money not physically hidden in a cash vault or under a mattress takes part in the economy.

[orwin]

Re-invest in crypto or other, already-existing stocks. The secondary market is so huge nowadays, and uncorrelated from dividends, mainly because growth (followed by regular buybacks), not dividends, is now the main way to pay investors, but not only. In fact, what Jacques Richard call "futuristic accounting" (his research is available in english [0]) is basically helping big companies to decorrelate real profits from dividends.

[0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265171038_The_dange...

[nickpp]

> Re-invest in crypto or other, already-existing stocks.

Again, for a stock to be on the market, somebody has to do the economic activity to create & bring it there. Buying from that "someone" pumps the money back in the economy. Buying from another, previous, stocks owner just moves the situation to him.

Kind of like when you pay your retailer for the product on the shelf: there are certain delays but eventually the money has to reach the product builder, with each participant in the production & logistics chain keeping his share on the way.

This is simple, trivial logic and no amount of biased, ideological "research" can change it.

[orwin]

Except when you're in a bubble.

You're right, eventually an investor exit his position to buy newly issued shares or obligations, which in theory should be used to increase production.

What I'm saying is twofold: most of the money is invested in purely financial products, not production. Two examples: I'm not against futures, I think it's a good idea to stabilise farmers income. But when you have twice as much money in futures, twice as much investments in agritech, and the same agricultural output, can I say that money had no impact in production? Also,just look at the state of mining companies, or rather, where new money is invested. A lot is in new prospecting companies with 'AI' or 'blockchain' in their website. In the same time, new mines open less frequently, despite a huge increase in investment. Am I allowed to say that investment in this sector is decorrelated from actual production?

That's my first point. My second was that the new accounting 'technique' (futuristic accounting) used by some companies (PE, but probably others) is used to issue dividends uncorrelated from profit (thus uncorrelated from production).

Also I don't want to enter a boxing match, just confronting point of views, and I don't care that you didn't read about the specific of futuristic accounting, it's about accounting, I understand. But don't call ideological something you did not read next time.

[nickpp]

The only point I am addressing here is the claim that invested money is not injected back in the economy.

Where exactly do you think invested money goes, if not in economy? Please be specific. Give concrete examples.

No boxing match, just trying to understand your point. I know nothing about mining sector and I have no clue what the connection with your “futuristic accounting” is.