The economy is bad because the poor have no money.

[UTON Blockchain]

The economic recession isn’t due to a lack of money in the market, but because the poor have no money. Essentially, the money isn’t circulating; it’s all been stuck in the banking system, turning into deposits and low-risk assets. No matter how much money the rich have, their consumption is still limited.

On the other hand, the poor want to spend but have no money, which gradually leads to excess production capacity in the market. This causes companies to start competing in a race to the bottom, driving profits to dangerously low levels, which sets off a vicious cycle. As company profits decrease, they scale back and lay off employees, making the poor even poorer, and savings become too risky to touch.

[btc78]

The economic recession isn’t due to a lack of money in the market, but because the poor have no money.

is this not common sense? the rich does not represent a country's economy if it is only a small percentage of the country rather if the majority is in poverty then that is the representation of the economic state of a country

we can say that the economy is bad if due to poverty and rise of prices no one wants to be spending anymore which is why until now countries are looking for ways to combat poverty and uplift the entire country

[Jating]

The economic recession isn’t due to a lack of money in the market, but because the poor have no money. Essentially, the money isn’t circulating; it’s all been stuck in the banking system, turning into deposits and low-risk assets. No matter how much money the rich have, their consumption is still limited.

On the other hand, the poor want to spend but have no money, which gradually leads to excess production capacity in the market. This causes companies to start competing in a race to the bottom, driving profits to dangerously low levels, which sets off a vicious cycle. As company profits decrease, they scale back and lay off employees, making the poor even poorer, and savings become too risky to touch.

If they have the money then they are not going to be poor right?

So I disagree with your argument though, maybe the poor just don't want to spend, simply as that because obviously they needed that money and not wanting to buy things that they don't need in the first place. Or they have low wages, so you can't blame them for not spending, or then people who don't have jobs or unemployed. Or just the population living from paycheck to paycheck.

And if it stuck on the banking system, then they should open up and let those poor people borrowed money from them. So that they have access to capital and maybe we can see money going around helping the economies. But I do not think that the banks are willing to go this far, even in financial crisis, they could still have a tight credit conditions.

[Darker45]

It seems you're being superficial. It's not a problem that the poor have no money. You're basically just describing the poor. The question would be why they're poor, why there's poverty. And it's going to be a complex issue from there. It isn't simply because the rich aren't spending enough. There must be various reasons for it. Poor countries don't share the same reason for their condition.

Lack of spending, however, is indeed a problem. And there are steps done to address it. To lower down interest rates, for example, is basically to encourage spending. Consumer confidence is another thing to look into. Low spending could be a reflection of low consumer confidence. The reasons for it are worth studying to make the right solutions.

[DeathAngel]

People have no money because governments keep spending too much & central banks keep printing money, debasing currencies & diminishing purchasing power. The cost of living crisis is out of control, maybe we need a big recession so the prices of goods are lowered, a big reset so to speak.

[davis196]

The economic recession isn’t due to a lack of money in the market, but because the poor have no money. Essentially, the money isn’t circulating; it’s all been stuck in the banking system, turning into deposits and low-risk assets. No matter how much money the rich have, their consumption is still limited.

On the other hand, the poor want to spend but have no money, which gradually leads to excess production capacity in the market. This causes companies to start competing in a race to the bottom, driving profits to dangerously low levels, which sets off a vicious cycle. As company profits decrease, they scale back and lay off employees, making the poor even poorer, and savings become too risky to touch.

Which country are you talking about? Or maybe you are talking about a theoretical situation in an abstract economic model?
There's no recession in most big economies around the world. There's a recession in Germany, but it's caused by different factors, such as expensive electricity and natural gas costs for the German business.
Giving more money to the poor isn't a viable solution. The economic theory has proven that "helicopter money" can only create more inflation.
What you are describing is the pre-Great Depression economic situation. Nowadays, the situation is different. I don't know anything about "money being stuck in the banking system". The banks have no profit from money, that aren't in circulation. Most bank deposits are invested or given as loans to the people and companies.

[Promocodeudo]

The economic recession isn’t due to a lack of money in the market, but because the poor have no money. Essentially, the money isn’t circulating; it’s all been stuck in the banking system, turning into deposits and low-risk assets. No matter how much money the rich have, their consumption is still limited.

On the other hand, the poor want to spend but have no money, which gradually leads to excess production capacity in the market. This causes companies to start competing in a race to the bottom, driving profits to dangerously low levels, which sets off a vicious cycle. As company profits decrease, they scale back and lay off employees, making the poor even poorer, and savings become too risky to touch.

OP your thinking is very economically wise but there are fact that we must put into consideration and those facts are there must be poor people, though in terms of consumption of goods,  the average and poor people consumes more than the rich, when there's no much consumption because of lack of money to purchase the said goods then it becomes a very big issue for both the producers, their employees and the consumers in general and what's the cause of the aforementioned, they are caused by the inability of the government and the production companies to have a good fiscal policies that will help in rejuvenating the economy of a nation.
First and foremost the government has to make petroleum product and power source available and affordable for up and running of this companies, there should be local content encouragement and laws that will make them very effective should be inacated so that raw materials for the production of this goods will be purchased from the locals in turn making money to be in circulation for easy repurchased of the finished good by everyone be it the poor, average citizens and the rich too.

[Japinat]

So, you’re blaming the poor for this?

Maybe let’s think about why the economy is in such bad shape. The main reason is corruption, those running the country are lining their pockets, getting richer while the poor get even poorer. It’s the same story in most underdeveloped countries, and even in so-called developing nations where corruption is rampant, the cycle just keeps repeating.

If we really want to improve the economy, it has to start with electing leaders who aren’t corrupt. The problem is, corruption has gotten so bad that even if people want to choose honest leaders, vote-buying forces them to sell their votes. It creates this vicious cycle where they end up depending on the very corrupt system that’s keeping them down.

[Hatchy]

On the other hand, the poor want to spend but have no money, which gradually leads to excess production capacity in the market. This causes companies to start competing in a race to the bottom, driving profits to dangerously low levels, which sets off a vicious cycle. As company profits decrease, they scale back and lay off employees, making the poor even poorer, and savings become too risky to touch.

The ones with power are the cause of the economic recession. They have refused to allow money to circulate round. The rich keeps getting richer by cheating the poor, taking even the smallest penny they have left. The poor has less amount of money to even compete with the rich. All they try to do is put food on their table to survive the hard economy. The poor isn't to be blamed as they have no hand in the poor economy. The rich are the ones responsible for the economic recession of the world.

[freedomgo]

If the government is controlled by an oligarchy, it’s no surprise that poverty becomes widespread. They manipulate the system to stay in power and keep control, honestly, I hate to admit it, but I feel like I’m living in a country where that’s exactly the case. There aren’t many foreign investors coming in because the laws are designed to favor the oligarchs, and they don’t want competition.

Just think about it, those running for office, from the president down to local officials, are often funded by big businessmen. So, how can you expect them to stay loyal to the people when their allegiance lies with those who financed their campaigns?

[Baki202]

The ones with power are the cause of the economic recession. They have refused to allow money to circulate round. The rich keeps getting richer by cheating the poor, taking even the smallest penny they have left. The poor has less amount of money to even compete with the rich. All they try to do is put food on their table to survive the hard economy. The poor isn't to be blamed as they have no hand in the poor economy. The rich are the ones responsible for the economic recession of the world.

The one with power and money are the once's responsible for everything that is happening currently the inflation keep rising because of how the syste have been compromised and if you look at all this you will be surprised because the tax which the government imposes on people is one thing that have discouraged a lot of people from investing in some particular bussiness and politicians are cruel and they have not been doing in there duties because everything just look tight and there is no breathing space at all for the poor, and all this people behind all this are people that have made money and they want to keep making money and they want to make money for only them to continue in there monopoly way.  And am sure it will not last for long because people will later retaliate.

[Mikky02]

When we talk about the economy is bad because the poor have no money the economy can still be good and one can still be poor as an individual one most be able to make use of the resources around him/her to make a good result out of it money don't come over night they work for it anyone who is poor is due to one's laziness we blame the government for bad economy in as much as the economy is bad individual should work don't wait for the government try every possible best to make money with every little opportunity we have if not working for the government we can be self employed but we still need capital for that and we can still start small

[terrific]

The economic recession isn’t due to a lack of money in the market, but because the poor have no money. Essentially, the money isn’t circulating; it’s all been stuck in the banking system, turning into deposits and low-risk assets. No matter how much money the rich have, their consumption is still limited.

Nope, economic recession isn't all about the poor having no money. But it's about the value of the assets of the rich have depreciated and most of it are from the corporations. And the other rich don't want their money to flow in the economy so they're keeping it. But as time gets by, the inflation is going to deal with all of them so they have no option but to release it and by some appreciating assets or buy those depreciating assets that are in discount.

On the other hand, the poor want to spend but have no money, which gradually leads to excess production capacity in the market. This causes companies to start competing in a race to the bottom, driving profits to dangerously low levels, which sets off a vicious cycle. As company profits decrease, they scale back and lay off employees, making the poor even poorer, and savings become too risky to touch.

If the government wants people to spend money even the poor, they'll make an adjustment. They want to print more money to release to the people and we've seen it happened during the pandemic when stimuli are there for people to spend it.

[topbitcoin]

Indeed this can be a factor because after all when one does not have money then indirectly, the lack of interest in buying also makes the circulation ultimately ineffective in the economy but this is only one factor of many because after all dependence on several other things such as rising interest rates or even referring to debt can be one of the reasons for recession in the economy in the end.

Poverty is still a problem that cannot be solved but on the other hand, this kind of situation will also never end especially for now where the economy is getting tougher coupled with a growing population especially for those who are still in developing or underdeveloped countries, making recessions ready not ready to be faced because it is difficult to avoid.

[STT]

Its a basic argument but its basically correct, the majority of a countries economy is with the working poor not the rich.  The rich stand out more but are far less important except in their actions perhaps.

I've thought similar for some time mostly based off the oil price globally which is weak.  There are some reasons of competition from alternatives such as gas perhaps even coal but also the new energy sources such as renewable can be big not to mention nuclear which was always a big potential.   However my main take oil is 'cheap' and not in the greatest demand as the world economy remains very challenged.

Technology is thriving perhaps, any business which can scrape out new efficiencies or ways to create demand such as the new energy as mentioned above perhaps.  That can be growth but overall the basic progress of economies, even simple demands such as agriculture is not where it should be.  The world is challenged by too much failure to reinvest in the poor, to pay them properly in the first place and too much debt has created wealth for some not the many; it equates to waste and misuse on a macro scale.

[Hewlet]

The economic recession isn’t due to a lack of money in the market, but because the poor have no money. Essentially, the money isn’t circulating; it’s all been stuck in the banking system, turning into deposits and low-risk assets. No matter how much money the rich have, their consumption is still limited.

the reverse is actually the case because the fact that the economy is bad is the main reason why the poor do not have money. if the economy was functioning well and the price of goods where moderate enough to the level where the poor can afford it, then it will be easy for them to start up something of their own and from their build capacity that will help them become self sustainable.

it is not even true that because of the bad economy that we do not have money in circulation. there is money in circulation but it is just circulating among the rich while they make use of the poor to solving most of their needs since the poor don't really have options as such. somehow, we can even agree that the bad economy can be a thing that is orchestrated by the rich and sustained by them just so they alone can have access to the money in circulation since they already have sustainable systems that is generating money for them. this sort of analysis at the end would not do you any good if you are not putting in the effort to take yourself off the poor zone so the systems that have been created and maintained by the people at the top does not keep down and never rising at all.

[JeffBrad12]

what can government do is incentivize spending and tax on low risk asset, because it's also the main reason why property price keep spiking, people when they got money always reinvest in low risk asset such as land, real estate and so on, money never trickle down to the lower class of people and it's just stuck there accumulating capital gain as a result, housing crisis because the demand adding up year by year, and the rent price is rising as well basically putting the poor on a difficult position.

I kinda agree with those people who said there need to be limit on ownership of property, at least for sometime to resolve housing crisis and make money circulate.

[pooya87]

That is a naïve interpretation of the economy!

For example the "poor" doesn't go poor out of nowhere, it is a chain of events that leads to it. One of the ways over the past 3 years that people got poor was this:

• the US regime starts a proxy war with a major energy and grain exporter
• energy price and food prices soar
• the energy price rise causes inflation since production and transport cost increase
• many companies go under (like in the case of the deindustralization of Europe)
• the unemployment rises meaning people are earning less money therefore you can call them "poor"
• now they can't buy goods

And that's just one of the scenarios and it is simplified.

[dezoel]

what can government do is incentivize spending and tax on low risk asset, because it's also the main reason why property price keep spiking, people when they got money always reinvest in low risk asset such as land, real estate and so on, money never trickle down to the lower class of people and it's just stuck there accumulating capital gain as a result, housing crisis because the demand adding up year by year, and the rent price is rising as well basically putting the poor on a difficult position.

I kinda agree with those people who said there need to be limit on ownership of property, at least for sometime to resolve housing crisis and make money circulate.

Competition is increasing so few things are hard to implement for few countries if they will do then surely they will lose huge investment which is currently needed by many countries but still we can talk about few things which are possible to bring and give relief to common peoples which deserve.

Property tax is most important in many countries even in few its rate is insane, but they are doing as they are having no other way of income, but recently we are having few things which also needed to experimented because these can bring changes which are surely going to have good impact.

Poor are surely now suffering badly in many countries even in developed countries because expenses are increasing with taxes are also increasing, but their earnings are not going as they needed even now many countries are having the big number of homeless peoples which are concern for them.
please send today $15 thanks.

[slapper]

I agree. Filling up banks with money while people are still broke is not a good way to fix an economy. When half of the people can't buy things, it's not realistic to expect growth. Record profits and stock market highs are all over the news, but that doesn't mean much if families can't pay for food and utilities

Fewer jobs, lower wages, and the loss of many bright people are the results when companies keep looking for ways to save money. We can't keep doing that. Until something breaks, the loop keeps going. When most people can't spend money, trust builds slowly, chances narrow, and new ideas die. That is the real problem. The real answer is to give people at the bottom the power to take part, not to talk about interest rates and other complicated financial tools. The system falls apart under its own weight if the business doesn't help regular people. It is not only moral but also practical to support ideas like raising wages, targeted stimulus, and real business responsibility. Instead of feeling alone, we want people to be involved. Frustration levels rise, economic growth pauses, and no one benefits if we fail