Trinkledown theory- A failing theory?

[Received]

If you think about it, ours is an economic situation where the super-rich spending money like crazy would be equivalent to a public duty, given that it would stimulate the economy in a way that makes up for all the cash that's otherwise being stowed away and preventing growth.

Sure wish I had that public duty.

 

[Received]

Bit of a theoretical aside, but if it's true that supply side economics fails in large part (perhaps exclusively) because there's such lopsidedness of wealth that the rich end saves because they see no point in buying, would this then be a fair rebuttal of the classical economic view that needs are unlimited and resources limited?

 

[variant]

Bit of a theoretical aside, but if it's true that supply side economics fails in large part (perhaps exclusively) because there's such lopsidedness of wealth that the rich end saves because they see no point in buying, would this then be a fair rebuttal of the classical economic view that needs are unlimited and resources limited?

The needs are still unlimited the resorces are merely concentrated.

 

[Received]

But wouldn't saving imply limitations to needs?

 

[variant]

But wouldn't saving imply limitations to needs?

Perhaps it implies it, "the rich" use a considerable amount of their "saved" resources to obtain more resources though. Need in that equation only disappears when people are satisfied.

There probably is an upper limit on aggregate need but it happens at a point where we have a much higher amount of resources than are historically plausible.