When I hear "people should spend all of their money" instead of saving...

[Atlas]

When I hear a statist, keynesian economist talking about how people from all walks of life shouldn't save their money and how they should spend their paychecks completely, I think of natural disasters, economic collapses or other personal crises and how people will be running towards the government for assistance. Instead of using their own means to recover, they will depend on a higher power to get back up again.

To me, the whole notion of not saving money is very authoritarian. To say people shouldn't prepare and save is like saying every man is the government's bitch and your survival is dependent on their ability to bring you up again. It implies the government can never fail, which is clearly wrong.

Just my 2 cents.

As for the effectiveness of depending on the government when shit happens, that's an entirely different debate that could be discussed here.

My point is hoarding has its purpose: Stored wealth is supposed to be your safety net when times are bad. At the very least, it's mine. I don't think of going on welfare or to the food bank when I lose my job among other things. I think of my own Plan B. I believe you should consider doing the same.

[1714004690]

1714004690

[CrazyGuy]

It has its merits. If the government were to collapse, you may be hard pressed to convince someone a hundred dollar bill is worth a weeks worth of food. On the other hand, the guy who spent all of his money( assuming he didn't spend it all on hookers and blow) may have some tangible goods to trade.

[kokjo]

buy bitcoins or gold. ie. spending them on a store of value

[hamdi]

aren't we right now in the "LIVE NOW PAY LATER" generation?

most people i know got loans to pay back for shitty cars they already crashed...

[odolvlobo]

People saying we should spend more and save less need a quick lesson in macro (Keynesian) economics.

Y = C + I + G + X

Y is total spending (GDP), C is consumption (a.k.a. consumer spending), I is investment (a.k.a. savings), G is government spending, and X is exports (less imports).

Please note that if you increase C by decreasing I, Y does not change. In other words, spending more and saving less does not increase GDP. Furthermore, growth of GDP depends on I. So, if a country wants to increase GDP, they need to increase savings and decrease spending (both consumer and government).

[C10H15N]

aren't we right now in the "LIVE NOW PAY LATER" generation?

most people i know got loans to pay back for shitty cars they already crashed...

...and I love raking in that interest.   

[Pteppic]

So, if a country wants to increase GDP, they need to increase savings and decrease spending (both consumer and government).

Not necessarily; there is also the golden rule savings rate to consider. For a country with high consumption, increasing investment can lead to higher consumption. For a country with high investment/savings, increasing consumption can actually be beneficial.(The wikipedia article is a bit technical. The theory is based on the idea that an over-invested economy will lose value due to over-capacity and depreciation of capital.)

I would say China is an example of a country that saves too much and as a result, the people have a lower standard of living than they would in a more balanced economy.

I think that encouraging people to spend more is intended as a short-term solution to a short-term problem. Recessions create dead-weight losses to the economy; skills and industries are lost that don't spontaneously reappear in the good times. Spending more in the short-term could keep them going until a recovery becomes self-sustaining. In the longer term, though, a rebalancing to a less consumer dominated economy is probably in everyone's interests.

[SgtSpike]

When I hear a statist, keynesian economist talking about how people from all walks of life shouldn't save their money and how they should spend their paychecks completely, I think of natural disasters, economic collapses or other personal crises and how people will be running towards the government for assistance. Instead of using their own means to recover, they will depend on a higher power to get back up again.

To me, the whole notion of not saving money is very authoritarian. To say people shouldn't prepare and save is like saying every man is the government's bitch and your survival is dependent on their ability to bring you up again. It implies the government can never fail, which is clearly wrong.

Just my 2 cents.

As for the effectiveness of depending on the government when shit happens, that's an entirely different debate that could be discussed here.

My point is hoarding has its purpose: Stored wealth is supposed to be your safety net when times are bad. At the very least, it's mine. I don't think of going on welfare or to the food bank when I lose my job among other things. I think of my own Plan B. I believe you should consider doing the same.

I very much agree.  It's time people wake up and take responsibility for themselves and their own financial situations.

[johnyj]

If you save a lot of gold, then comes natural disaster, what is the use of those gold if all the factories have been wiped out in an earthquake?

Even if a private person think that he is saving, his saving at bank will still be loaned out for investment projects

Saving means: consumption < production, it always created excessive goods/services. If those goods/services can not be used to support future investment,  then they will just degrade and become useless. So when people put saving in action, it is very high pressure on investment front

And today's problem is that there is really very little choice that you can invest and make sure you can make money, maybe only long term investment will generate some return for sure

[kokjo]

If you save a lot of gold, then comes natural disaster, what is the use of those gold if all the factories have been wiped out in an earthquake?

trade.

you could invest in frozen carrots instead of gold.

[johnyj]

If you save a lot of gold, then comes natural disaster, what is the use of those gold if all the factories have been wiped out in an earthquake?

trade.

you could invest in frozen carrots instead of gold.

No freeze 

[FreeMoney]

If you save a lot of gold, then comes natural disaster, what is the use of those gold if all the factories have been wiped out in an earthquake?

Saving is only for those 99.99999% of disasters that harm you and not the entire world.

[Dabs]

The simplest and easiest to understand is land. Buy property with all your money. And if you are fearing a zombie apocalypse, buy the firepower you would probably need to defend it.

[regular]

what about the stockmarket?  would you consider buying them saving?  It's like you're spending fiat to try to gain more fiat.

[odolvlobo]

what about the stockmarket?  would you consider buying them saving?  It's like you're spending fiat to try to gain more fiat.

You misunderstand the definition of "fiat". Fiat money is money that can be created without restriction by the issuer. Shares of a company do not have that property.

[MooC Tals]

Hello lets all go back to basics. The reason why we are having this problem is due to the wealth being diluted through inflation. Fractional reserve banking has been banned before.

The fractional reserve banking has been allowed to run its course and it hit the iceburg in 71 and since then whatever had given a positive value to what we had in our pockets has been removed. It is now a negative value or aka debt.

How do you save in a wealth vacuum other than PM's . The problem is everyone feels this shit we have in our pocket is worth something. Actually it is worth something, its only worth paying taxes with it. I would never give up my gold or silver to pay state taxes.

Yes I know we are given interest for the currency we hold in banks but at a level that is below inflation and can't even hold a flame against their creative fees that eat away at our lives.

nuff said. BANKS ARE THE CANCER AND THE PROBLEM

If people had a place to put money that was safe and honest I think little Johnny would spend less and save more.   

[Thralen]

Well, as mentioned by others, there are ways to 'save' that don't involve fiat dollars. Here are a few ways I 'save':

1. I buy materials that I'll need for my business (sole proprietor). I know what I need the most of, so I've stockpiled lots of those.

2. I buy PMs, Sure you can't eat gold but 5000+ years of history say that someone out there will be happy to trade some food for some gold or silver if there is a major catastrophe. If not, consider it a long term investment and it will probably pay off at a decent rate.

3. I buy long term storage food. You can buy #10 cans of Mountain House and similar style items that have a 30 yr storage without losing nutrition or flavor. You can also store your own foods long term, for up to 30 yrs depending on what you are storing. Look up "long term food storage in buckets" online and I bet you find a lot of suggestions. If food prices ever soar, I'm covered despite the declining purchasing power of my grocery budget.

4. I buy firearms/ammo. Check the demand on firearms over the last decade. I've heard of some people buying them as investments, plus you have the weapon in question in the meanwhile for defensive purposes (if necessary and if legal in your state).

5. Invest it into an appropriate alternative energy for your area. If you own your own house, why not own your own power as well. You'll save in the long term by not having to purchase your electricity from the power companies. Might take a few years to pay itself off but, you want to earn a real negative interest rate in a savings account instead I've only done a little with this one, still researching my possibilities and have a few tests set up.

6. Spend it on books or classes to teach you things you'd like to know. Knowledge is always a good investment.

7. Improve your land (if you own some) or buy some if you don't have any.

The list could go on and on and on. You can find lots of "alternative saving" plans online. I personally keep enough fiat cash around to pay the next month or so of bills, the rest goes into anything but fiat that I know I'll eventually use.

Thralen

[Flowz]

I think you should find a balance in between spending and saving.

If nobody spends anything, then there would be no economy.

Actually, you must use a balance between spending, investing and saving.
You should save money but also invest it.
But again, what are you if you only invest and save money?
Nothing, if everyone is doing that.  (You have people living minimalisticly just to save money, while they could be partly spending it on things they enjoy.)

Someone on this world must SPEND his money to make your INVESTMENT a good deal. You should SAVE money for the day you must SPEND the money.

That's how I think about it, you might say that I'm thinking with blissful ignorance but w/e.

[johnyj]

I think you should find a balance in between spending and saving.

If nobody spends anything, then there would be no economy.

Actually, you must use a balance between spending, investing and saving.
You should save money but also invest it.
But again, what are you if you only invest and save money?
Nothing, if everyone is doing that.  (You have people living minimalisticly just to save money, while they could be partly spending it on things they enjoy.)

Someone on this world must SPEND his money to make your INVESTMENT a good deal. You should SAVE money for the day you must SPEND the money.

That's how I think about it, you might say that I'm thinking with blissful ignorance but w/e.

Quite right!

In modern economic theory, they always say that today's saving = future's spending. But that spending could come 20 years later when majority of people are feeling unsafe, so it is quite different view from long term perspective

If consumption = production, goods and services will be consumed very quickly and the amount of money needed for transaction is minimum (if you earn and spend 3000$ every month, money supply require maximum 3000$ throughout the year)

If consumption < production, you will create excessive amount of goods/services and they will be stocked and start to depreciate. At the same time, the amount of money supply will be magnitudes higher than previous case (If you try to save 30000$ for one year's life, money supply need to reach 30000$)

If consumption > production, then you are consuming value that has not been produced by you, you are in debt, and your future labour is contracted to pay back today's consumption. But that is risky since no one can guarantee the future

[kokjo]

buy bitcoins or gold. ie. spending them on a store of value

Neither of those 2 have a real value. You can't eat them, you can't drink them. Without food and drink, people die. Something that
does not solve existential problems on it's own is worthless. Just don't be stupid to count on someone being fair and giving you
bread and water for your (physical) Bitcoins or gold = if situation goes that bad, you'll most likely be robbed or even killed. If you
doubt that, you just show how little real life experiences you have, especially those coming from troubled times. I not only have
first-hand experience with very troubled times (check War in Vukovar 1991.), but I know human history. You seem to lack all of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FykBW3zuZg8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydgMnQYtF6U

if you would read the whole thread, i also suggests "frozen carrots" as a store of value.

i might lack knowledge of history, but you clearly don't read very well.