Thank you. I appreciate that. His post sounded like Socialism 101 to me. Strange.
Not at all. It was a simple observation that, for business to prosper, there must be money in circulation, i.e. being passed around among more than just a few people.
Example: Let's say M3 is a sum of money X. In one economy, people are buying and selling, and nobody owns more than, say, 0.4% of M3, and the vast majority, a tiny fraction of that.
In the other economy, M3 is the same, but it's all held in one account. One guy owns all the money in the world. That's a dead economy, full of dead people, and the sole owner of all that money is fishing for his own dinner, since there's nobody left for him to work with or sell to. Capiche? It's not an unreasonable observation. Everyone is better off in a growing, busy economy and society, not a wealth-storage economy in which Mr. Big holds all the value and dispenses it with tweezers, never lending or investing and never buying more than enough to meet his own needs.