An honest question about that; since I've heard the "we need people to spend money" a lot, and for the most part think I understand and agree.
However, even if someone saves, (especially if they save via wealth growers like investments to counter inflation) that money doesn't just go into the ground with them when they die. I'd assume the majority of it does go to pay out goods and services in the future, probably nearer to the end of life. As such I'd assume that rather than having everyone buying all the things all the time, you could provide an equivalent effect to the market with only those in the end of life spending at a much higher rate than they would have if they stayed uniform across their lives.
Is there any reason this wouldn't be sufficient to provide the same effect, as well as providing individual benefit? (In blunter words, someone tear a hole in my argument please :) )
However, even if someone saves, (especially if they save via wealth growers like investments to counter inflation) that money doesn't just go into the ground with them when they die. I'd assume the majority of it does go to pay out goods and services in the future, probably nearer to the end of life. As such I'd assume that rather than having everyone buying all the things all the time, you could provide an equivalent effect to the market with only those in the end of life spending at a much higher rate than they would have if they stayed uniform across their lives.
Is there any reason this wouldn't be sufficient to provide the same effect, as well as providing individual benefit? (In blunter words, someone tear a hole in my argument please :) )