Did you ever have a time when it was exceptionally obvious others around you had not at all considered the perspective they held?

This is my feeling when it comes to those who talk about, “eating the rich.”

I use the expression as a sort of “placeholder.”

There are those who employ it directly, but there are others who hold a variety of viewpoints that find themselves on the spectrum of bad concepts.

These unfortunate souls are anywhere between, “rich people are generally bad, and should be eschewed or worse for their evil existence” to, “people with excessive substance should be removed from the planet via whatever means the folks responsible for that removal deem appropriate.”

I should issue a disclaimer here. I support none of these ways of looking at things.

In fact, I can’t even support the idea of a death penalty—why that’s the case being a matter for another (perhaps already existing? I can’t recall at the moment) essay.

I could easily make a set of simple arguments that explain the more commonly expressed reasons folks don’t tend to support the “eating of” people who have “more than their share.”

Suffice to say, they’re things like:

1. Those folks aren’t generally evil, just hard working
2. In general, such people are the reason other (often far less fortunate) individuals have places to go where they will be gainfully employed and paid.
3. Even when the rich spend on themselves, they’re generally employing others to get whatever it is they want.
4. The people we’re talking about don’t tend to add terribly to consumptive demands, since by and large, they eat and drink no more than others (even if what they consume is often more expensive). Furthermore, their buying of things like yachts and large houses is usually—again—not a tremendously heavy demand on existing supplies.

You get the idea.

I wanted though, to talk about a few other ideas that many fail to consider.

It’s common for these people (the ones people look at as well off) to have “fat bank accounts.”

Perhaps many would consider that a bad thing.

Let me help you to understand why it’s not so bad as you might think.

More than a few economists and others involved with and concerned about money say something about it that lots of people fail to consider.

The first is a rather simple idea. When you have less money in circulation, its relative worth (how much a given amount of currency will purchase) increases.

That’s because of a simple idea.

If I grow apples, and the supply of available Granny Smiths is weak, the value of my fruit will increase based on the number of buyers looking to purchase it.

So when the supply of apples is plentiful, I might be able to trade five apples for a loaf of bread. When it’s not, I may only have to “spend” one or two of my precious produce items on my purchase.

The interesting thing is, if I could just hold on to my Honey Crisps, making it so fewer are on the market, I can “artificially” achieve the same end.

The same applies to money in the bank.

If I take my bills “out of circulation”—even temporarily—how much a dollar will buy will increase based on that fact.

But what if instead, that person of means chooses to invest his or her substance?

Besides that he or she will cause the employment of others, there will also be an increase of available products, services, or both.

Unless you argue that the fellow doing the investing intends to keep all he causes to be produced to himself, you have to come to realize that whatever is created is added to the exising supply.

That being true, there must be an increase in demand to cause the services or goods, to stay at the same value. Barring that eventuality, the price of whatever is generated will almost certainly go down.

To be clear, a person with tons of money can still only eat so many loaves of bread, and own so many houses in which he or she might live.

Holding onto almost anything, but particularly if the thing held is perishable, is an exercise in waste.

You can imagine, most folks who have collected large amounts of property of one sort of another did not get there by being wasteful.

The funny thing is this. Not only can I not easily come up with a reason to revile those holding large amounts of substance of various kinds, but I have a hard time thinking of a single negative thing to say about them.

You might understand that, I suppose, if I found myself among that group. To state it plainly, I do not.

I’m by no means poor. At the same time, I’m not anything like rich either.

I know people not much older than myself, who are “modest millionaires.” I am not among that group—even though I’m rather beyond middle aged.

I should point out that years ago, I sat in on a retirement planning “seminar” hosted by my workplace at the time. The folks holding that event insisted you needed a minimum of a million dollars in savings and retirement accounts to retire comfortably.

The U. S. Dollar has lost substantial value since that time.

As such, I would expect them to argue more like two million would be more reasonable today.

This means that many “prepared” folks getting ready to retire, are very likely “modest millionaires.”

Okay, I think I’ve pretty much made my point.

Allow me to restate here in “too long; didn’t read-ese.”

If you’re among those castigating or calling for the elimination of folks who “have” (regardless the level you set on amount), you’ll allow me to state my strong disagreement with you.

Based on what I’ve said above about their being beneficial to society for a number of reasons, you should understand my, “Why?”

Thanks for reading. Here’s hoping things are going well for you as you do so. If not, I hope and pray that such be the case in the near future.