Money that is kept and never spent is worthless. Currency has to be used to have value, otherwise it’s just paper (or bits). The working class won’t hold on to their money, they have bills to pay, groceries to buy, etc. Only the wealthy would hold on to their money, which they’re already doing.
The fuck you think investors do at all? What value do they create?
They definitely don’t pay my wages from their own “investment”. My wages are paid from the profits created by myself and coworkers working to create, market, sell, distribute the product. Soon as those profits don’t hit targets investors will absolutely vote to downsize or shutter entirely, not “invest” and continue paying wages.
I’m not going to explain all of macroeconomics to you, but the whole point of this discussion is decreasing prices is bad because money stops moving. If money stops moving, you stop getting paid. Is that simple enough for you to understand or does it need to be dumbed down further?
And I’m pointing out that the rich aren’t actually moving money to anyone but themselves.
So yes, the (rich) investors ARE hurting the economy for their own gain.
Like loans to companies and individuals, startup investments, stock purchases, etc. Money that moves around is useful. Money that is tucked under a mattress is not.
That was my point, pretty much. The issue is that money that’s kept is useless for society, but if its value increases it gains potential usefulness for its owner. I’m not saying that ordinary people will stop buying food and I’m not saying that corporations are doing community work right now, but the world in which the rich get even richer without even spending their money on something will be problematic at best. The economy will crash while everybody will hold on to whatever moves they have.
Only the wealthy would hold on to their money, which they’re already doing.
to be clear, “holding” on to money is innately going to be investing. Not only is holding onto significant piles of cash incredibly sketchy, it’s also really bad financial strategy, because you lose money over time, so you’re highly incentivized to invest the money you don’t actively need, into something that can do productive work for the market economy instead.
If we’re talking corporate money, which is different, and not the type of money you mentioned, things work a bit differently, but generally the mechanism is roughly the same, with some tax benefits, and mechanisms to create productivity rather than provide it instead. There are some funny things you can do like stock buybacks, but those do have some market utility though.
Money that is kept and never spent is worthless. Currency has to be used to have value, otherwise it’s just paper (or bits). The working class won’t hold on to their money, they have bills to pay, groceries to buy, etc. Only the wealthy would hold on to their money, which they’re already doing.
No, they invest it otherwise it loses value over time. Invested money is put to work.
Work? Like “buying” yet another company? Or stock buybacks?
No, like paying your wages. You should read a bit about how things work before getting upset.
The fuck you think investors do at all? What value do they create? They definitely don’t pay my wages from their own “investment”. My wages are paid from the profits created by myself and coworkers working to create, market, sell, distribute the product. Soon as those profits don’t hit targets investors will absolutely vote to downsize or shutter entirely, not “invest” and continue paying wages.
I’m not going to explain all of macroeconomics to you, but the whole point of this discussion is decreasing prices is bad because money stops moving. If money stops moving, you stop getting paid. Is that simple enough for you to understand or does it need to be dumbed down further?
And I’m pointing out that the rich aren’t actually moving money to anyone but themselves. So yes, the (rich) investors ARE hurting the economy for their own gain.
Like loans to companies and individuals, startup investments, stock purchases, etc. Money that moves around is useful. Money that is tucked under a mattress is not.
That was my point, pretty much. The issue is that money that’s kept is useless for society, but if its value increases it gains potential usefulness for its owner. I’m not saying that ordinary people will stop buying food and I’m not saying that corporations are doing community work right now, but the world in which the rich get even richer without even spending their money on something will be problematic at best. The economy will crash while everybody will hold on to whatever moves they have.
to be clear, “holding” on to money is innately going to be investing. Not only is holding onto significant piles of cash incredibly sketchy, it’s also really bad financial strategy, because you lose money over time, so you’re highly incentivized to invest the money you don’t actively need, into something that can do productive work for the market economy instead.
If we’re talking corporate money, which is different, and not the type of money you mentioned, things work a bit differently, but generally the mechanism is roughly the same, with some tax benefits, and mechanisms to create productivity rather than provide it instead. There are some funny things you can do like stock buybacks, but those do have some market utility though.