I seem to have been unclear again
I wasn't arguing that money wasn't involved.
I was trying to point out that simply moving money doesn't build an economy even though it shows up as increasing GDP (GDP just measures how much money exchanges hands).
Money has to have something real to back it.
In the case of people borrowing to cover a trade deficit, the money has nothing to back it and such a system will eventual collapseno matter who has the money.
This equation is why sending all the proceeds from improved productivity to the top 1% does not help the economy as much as sending it to the other 99%. It is because the other 99% spends it on goods and services rather than hoard it, thereby increasing the velocity of money.
Exactlyit spurs the production of actual things with actual utility.
Money is just a tool.
Economic prosperity
has to come from the production of actual things with actual utility. If it doesn't (as in the case of borrowing to cover a trade deficit or people getting rich in the 'financial sector') the 'prosperity' is an illusion. And it only takes one person to look behind the curtain, expose the con, and send the whole system tumbling down.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
Love your enemies!