| > 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. |