[dmoy]

> If everyone just understood what you're pointing out here--just really "got it"--I feel like the world would be in a much better place. It's not dire (I don't think?),

Maybe, but it also is predicated on a market like today's market, where the average American saves approximately zero dollars and has to work until social security.

If everyone saved a lot, you'd get a different situation. Probably a better situation, but it'd definitely be different.

[anonym29]

The average American might be able to save more and work fewer years if the average American didn't make the economically self-harming and unnecessary average spending decisions that average Americans make on social status signifiers, luxury goods, depreciating liabilities, etc.

[dmoy]

Right, exactly. And that consumerism is no small part of what fuels stock growth. If that disappears, then paradoxically your investments won't get you as far.

[anonym29]

59% of Americans can't cover an emergency expense of $1000. Economically disadvantaged people developing emergency funds and basic financial solvency is not going to destroy consumer spending.

Further, consided that the top 10% are responsible for half of all consumer spending, and the bottom 50% combined control just 2.5% of all assets. The bottom 60% ceasimg all spending would barely even move the needle, they're insignificant in the macro picture.

You are also making assumptions about my portfolio makeup, chiefly regarding long exposure to US equities that are primarily or substantially beneficiaries of consumer spending. This is not true for me personally, and moreover, there is plenty of money to be made in markets with or without tiny consumer spending blips.

[dmoy]

> 59% of Americans can't cover an emergency expense of $1000. Economically disadvantaged people developing emergency funds and basic financial solvency is not going to destroy consumer spending.

Agreed, though in this thread I don't think we're speculating about just having an emergency fund, but rather going and investing a decent chunk of income going forward. Closer to China savings rate than US savings rate, for example.

I personally think it would be great if people saved more, even if it means a current small-ish percentage no longer have the ability to live off of investments without working.

> Further, consided that the top 10% are responsible for half of all consumer spending, and the bottom 50% combined control just 2.5% of all assets. The bottom 60% ceasimg all spending would barely even move the needle, they're insignificant in the macro picture.

The bottom 50% certainly spends on food, rent, etc.

If you look at the consumer market in places (like China) with much higher savings rate, there are definitely difficulties with trying a US style approach of financial independence from purely stock investments and withdrawing a sizeable 3%+ per year.

> You are also making assumptions about my portfolio makeup,

Sorry I didn't mean you specifically, I mean the royal you as in the average person in the US. Who, if they're gonna invest, are gonna be probably at least 60% in US equities.

Certainly any random specific individual can make a portfolio resistant to whatever edge case. If you go 100% crypto, maybe you make out like gangbusters if people spend less. If you go 0% crypto, maybe you make out like gangbusters if crypto totally crashes. Etc etc.