General Discussion

Ruby the Liberal

(26,519 posts)

22. Yes - the Velocity of Money

Tue Jun 3, 2025, 12:36 PM

Jun 3

The economy thrives when money is in circulation. This is a great example of why Top-down (supply side economics) has not and never will work - as that money gets parked.

Adding to this - the top multiplier of money spent vs actual money flowing through the economy is SNAP (food stamps). For every $1 that is spent, ~$1.60 flows through the economy.

Building bottom up and middle out - not the discredited top down - is how the economy thrives.

Thanks for the thread.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Threads: Guy pays me $50 for a speaker [View all] LiberalArkie Jun 2 OP

Excellent. Midnight Writer Jun 2 #1

Well .... Lurker Deluxe Jun 3 #29

Except the bank doesn't sit on it ("for decades"). Disaffected Jun 2 #2

Like stock buy backs and dividends to stock holders. flashman13 Jun 2 #3

Both of which though keep the funds mobile and Disaffected Jun 2 #5

Stock buybacks inject money into the economy because the stock has to PAID for. Likewise dividends Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2 #14

Stock buy backs waste productivity. They represent a failure to strengthen and build flashman13 Jun 2 #18

Wrong. Stock is just a form of currency: a liquid asset that can be switched to cash and back. Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2 #19

No they don't. They are a form of corporate cancer. Enough said. flashman13 Jun 3 #25

You will be unable to explain a coherent true understanding of your bizarre theory. Bernardo de La Paz Jun 3 #27

Ah yes, but cash in action(the flow) is what makes cachukis Jun 3 #31

Exactly. If it can't be put in motion, then plow it back into the company, if you have confidence in the company Bernardo de La Paz Jun 3 #32

High brow. But the abuses seem to abound in cachukis Jun 3 #33

Yes, the disparity in wealth and income btwn the 1% and the 50% is a big unsustainable problem. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jun 3 #34

So you DO understand the multiplier effect! W_HAMILTON Jun 3 #35

Obviously b) giving to families. They will spend most of it in relatively short order. Bernardo de La Paz Jun 3 #36

Yes -- and that's the point the OP was making. W_HAMILTON Jun 3 #37

I direct you to my first post in this thread, #12. OP has a point but their argument does not make their point. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jun 3 #38

You get it. So many don't. . . .nt Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2 #13

That's also why "Trickle Down" is bullshit JoseBalow Jun 2 #4

Nothing wrong with investing. The bullshit in "Trickle Down" is parking bucks in real estate and artwork. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2 #15

My first thought was "What was the speaker?" CaptainTruth Jun 2 #6

I understand. I wondered something similar... "Who was the speaker?" littlemissmartypants Jun 2 #9

In another time: Codifer Jun 2 #7

Money in motion. You get it. Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2 #16

Except someone is a thief. nt. druidity33 Jun 3 #21

Excellent point and on top of that, they don't employ anyone, at least not in the numbers companies did 50 years ago n/t Cheezoholic Jun 2 #8

But... littlemissmartypants Jun 2 #10

Who exactly is the "they" in PoindexterOglethorpe Jun 3 #26

Nice to know Lurker Deluxe Jun 3 #30

2025 XOM Capex GladysKravitz Jun 2 #11

Welcome to DU. Good first post. You get it. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2 #17

Welcome to DU LetMyPeopleVote Jun 3 #23

There is a point but the example is Bogus and Untrue and Ignorant of basic economics Bernardo de La Paz Jun 2 #12

Another plus is Codifer Jun 2 #20

Yes - the Velocity of Money Ruby the Liberal Jun 3 #22

They're Parking Money In A Bank? ProfessorGAC Jun 3 #24

"The restaurant owner gives it to the waitress," greyl Jun 3 #28

If Exxon "Mobile" made profits by way of savings accounts Dreamer Tatum Jun 6 #39