| The question I answered was: > Doesn't the lack of liquidity in an economy cause deflationary behavior? Which seems to accept the given premise. But ok, let's look at yours: > the issue is that the GP's premise ("When super-rich people receive money, it goes mostly to tax havens, removing it from circulation.") is invalid. Is it? I thought it was well understood at this point that the best place to stimulate the economy was from the bottom, because every dollar put in goes directly back into circulation, creating demand, while the wealthy and middle class will save some portion of it. Certainly I don't think the money in my savings account is doing much to create the kind of demand that would stimulate job growth, and while one might argue that the stocks in my 401k are doing something the idea that it's driving more growth than buying a car is... Dubious. But if you have data please share. |
> Is it?
Yes, it is an inaccurate belief. The super-rich don't take most of the money (did the person mean money or did they mean wealth?) they receive, remove it from the economic system, and stash it unproductively in a tax haven.