Is it a catch 22, do We spend or do We save? (loan, debt)

[taurus430]

It seems like a catch 22. If we spend, it's good for the economy but could be bad for us.
If we save, it's bad for the economy, and might be good for us.

[chet everett]

You need to understand that there are a LOT of different ways to "save". Putting it in the bank is a GOOD THING, as then the banks have more funds to loan out to people to grow their business/take on mortgages/ keep lending functional.
Similarly SAVINGS put into Corporate Bonds directly give Corporatations the fund they need to do business.
Buying Municipal, State or Federal Bonds does the same sort of thing for government.

Spending does NONE of these things!

[evilnewbie]

Spending gives sales tax to the Feds which gives them loads of cash to waste on social programs and then when the social programs GROW and become TOO expensive, they increase the taxes on people who do NOT use these social programs... and then when it continues to GROW, they increase taxes on EVERYBODY... and then when it continues to GROW still, they cut specific parts of the program... and STILL it continues to GROW and they contract the social program out to private corporations who give you less than when you started but you know what... they increased taxes by a 1000% to pay for you getting less in these social programs now controlled by corporations... socialism sucks huh...

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by evilnewbie

Spending gives sales tax to the Feds which gives them loads of cash to waste on social programs and then when the social programs GROW and become TOO expensive, they increase the taxes on people who do NOT use these social programs... and then when it continues to GROW, they increase taxes on EVERYBODY... and then when it continues to GROW still, they cut specific parts of the program... and STILL it continues to GROW and they contract the social program out to private corporations who give you less than when you started but you know what... they increased taxes by a 1000% to pay for you getting less in these social programs now controlled by corporations... socialism sucks huh...

????

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by taurus430

It seems like a catch 22. If we spend, it's good for the economy but could be bad for us.
If we save, it's bad for the economy, and might be good for us.

Hi taurus430,

Seems like someone is lying doesn't it? Even though they lack the education of the typical pundits It is best to learn from the squirrels who eat what they need and save the rest.
The problem is that they don't want to monetize the nuts unless its commercial bank debt unlike the squirrels we have been brain washed that public monetization of the nuts is worse than private at interest. I wonder how many people would rather pay down the national debt than their mortgage? A squirrel would take the nuts and run even though most of them are pretty plump.

[humboldtrat]

Originally Posted by taurus430

If we save, it's bad for the economy, and might be good for us.

If it's good for YOU, go for it . Besides, when you save money (say in a bank), that money can be loaned out so others can buy a house, car, whatever and that helps the economy.

Save your money .

[Donn2390]

It depends on the situation. What are you spending money on? Something that hold value, or just tossing it away..?
If you have money and have needs, now it a great time to spend money.
We just spent a pile remodeling the kitchen and having all new flooring installed in our home. We are now getting prices to re-landscape the back yard. We will continue doing projects while the traders are hungry..
If you have the money, this is the time. The contractore and manufactures are all hurting for work, so the prices are very favorable. The money spent is something we had planned anyway, and it is an investment, so that kind of spending is very wise....
Spending money foolishly, or money you can'r afford, is never a good thing, and never is there a good time for that...
Everything depends on your situation...

[taurus430]

Originally Posted by humboldtrat

If it's good for YOU, go for it . Besides, when you save money (say in a bank), that money can be loaned out so others can buy a house, car, whatever and that helps the economy.

Save your money .

I'm a good spender, but a better saver (ask the wife LOL). I live within my means, and if I don't have it, I don't spend it which is what I wish more people would do.

I just meant to bring out a contradiction!

[HappyTexan]

Spending does not benefit you. Saving does benefit you.
The economy has too much debt from spending. We cannot spend our way out of it no matter what the government tells you.

[hindsight2020]

Originally Posted by taurus430

It seems like a catch 22. If we spend, it's good for the economy but could be bad for us.
If we save, it's bad for the economy, and might be good for us.

It's not a catch-22, it's just that the construct of said system is rigged and seems like a contradiction. Think about your statement..how can spending be good for the "economy" yet not good for the consumer? Who is the economy then? The reality is that the "economy" people refer to, does not actually represent you, the consumer. You know what that is called? Ponzi Scheme. The american service economy is a ponzi scheme, the consumers are the pawn and the oligarchy of international banking institutions, which do lead to a handful of real individuals who hide in the castles of the world, are the beneficiaries of the scheme. Sounds far-fetched? Keep spending on your faboluous service economy, see how that works out for ya.... Thence, there is no catch-22, as the "economy" that benefits from your spending and the consumer are two different entities....contradiction debunked.

As gwynedd pointed out before, who decided that public monetization of the proverbial nut is Lucifer himself yet private monetization of the same (at interest mind you, usury in its fundamental definition) is all of a sudden Liberty incarnate??? Absolute corporatist state propaganda is what that is. Our service economy is neo-feudal and people who refuse to partake in the scheme are called out on the so-called catch-22 you seemed confused about. It is a system of currency that is based on debt and effectively inflation-substantiated, which makes a technically proper, albeit shallow and short-sighted, argument against savings in such a system. What you need to take away from that apparent catch-22 is that the system is the problem, and you'd be better off fighting to change it than remaining hopelessly dispossessed, like a voter on Nov 4th between the pre-approved choices of bad for you and bad for you, by legitimizing it with your unquestioning participation.

Leaning towards a personal fiscal policy of savings is indeed bad for the service economy, and good for you unless you have a service economy dependent job. As to that count, at some point Americans will have to sack up and realize that perhaps a livelihood based on indentured non-goods producing wage slavery is in effect not a life worth pursuing, and that a change in the construct of how we substantiate our livelihood has to change, for our own good. The system rejects the proposition of dismantling the service economy with visible anxiety. Look at the idiots on CNBC throwing bananas at each other while arguing deflation is bad; not from where we, the consumers, sit. The argument for how deflation will constrict the economy and the unemployment will rise is a non-difference, as there is no real economic difference between a million non-self-sufficient unemployed people being subsidized by other pawns, and a million underemployed people whose "employment" do not afford them self-sufficiency either, and are still subsidized by the same pawns, at a small discount, all the while feeding the idea that they are free because they are "employed". Once people recognize this is a non-difference, then they will recognize there was no catch-22 to begin with and that will be the day the pawns (who greatly outnumber the schemers mind you) will have a snowball's chance to dispossess the bankers of their darwinian, never mind unconstitutional, ability to monopolize wealth. Clear as mud?