Comments by "Andrew Sainsbury" (@andyinsuffolk) on "Saving in itself is merely negative" video.

@tancreddehauteville764 - Hiding money under the bed is probably not rational or optimal -- but you are wrong in thinking that this has intrinsic detrimental effect on society which must take priority -- there is no natural wealth limit. Uncle's life may have been best served by knowing he had his 'pot of gold' and it's not up to you to decide otherwise. There are several other aspects to this but none of them justify the Professors confiscatorial approach.
2
Thought experiment:: If everyone started taking their wages home and hiding most under the bed the market/society would encourage them to change behaviour extremely quickly (they would be mostly unemployed). A minority with poor judgement doing the same might be better for society and the economy? -- all spending and consumption is not 'good for all'. The idea that central authority will make the best choice is the problem.
2
The argument that the wealth held by the excessively rich represents some zero-sum limit for the economy is just weird -- that this wealth has been maintained within a Keynesian world order is ironic. As even China demonstrates we have not reached an end to absolute wealth production -- the main limits to UK achieving dramatic prosperity are the artificial ones imposed by the political class and their cronies who wish to be free to distribute property and largesse for special interest whatever the societal cost. Saving is an individual freedom just like spending -- we should have BBC public service broadcasts on democracy.
2
That's not a pareto distribution.
1
@Redf322 -- we have consumption taxes.
1
Dead right -- the big state advocates who wish to micro-manage all of us cannot accept that their ideology is the problem -- their answer is always to double-down and impose ever more centralised controls and limit all the stupid little people's choices. If we actually voted for this clap-trap they might have a case for mass delusion being the collective choice -- but they don't like us choosing our own politics either.
1
When did you last make a purchase on Amazon or any other investment by the super-rich and benefit from your 'trickle-down' - low prices/availability/etc ?
1
Keynesian thinking was fundamentally about smoothing the business cycle using State Currency Tools - No ? It predicted that 70s inflation AND unemployment was impossible [wrong]. Hasn't it failed?; even the counter that nobody actually followed the pure model fails because nobody has followed any model rigorously especially the obvious real money minimal state alternative -- although we can hope that Argentina keeps heading in that direction currently and proves the case.
1
@Vroomfondle1066 - I suggest like every other centralising system the failure was stopping virtually everyone doing as they want. The idea that a centralised system that cannot handle disruption has merit regardless is .. odd. History shows that welfare provision grew and prospered without authoritarian mandate as prosperity and freedom accelerated -- the likelihood that the Big-State has accelerated propserity is extremely low; so I would suggest that most of the real suffering is now caused by the tiny ruling-class & their preferences.
1
@Redf322 -- Sorry if I'm missing some irony. Democracy is the answer to everything at a society level. Ruthless regulation of those who wish to rule; politicans and their special interest groups would solve all these 'economic' questions because political equality wouldn't(?) allow property rights infringements by the few. We would then accelerate ahead of Switzerland and the others practicing democracy-lite and arguing about what counts as rich would become pointless - we could concentrate on living good lives.
1
@abody499 - Your British English grammar radar has failed you old son --- although I'm not sure why being a resident of the various other Suffolks around the globe would invalidate any arguments ?? (Double Question Marks)
1