P.S. said:
Would agree, saver amongst savers my preference. Just as everybody benefits when everybody is educated, can read, etc. The mindset of a saver maybe net- "contribute" more to society than just the raising of GDP.
I disagree. I'll admit right now that I haven't thought about this much, and I'm not an economist. However, I think it's better to be a saver amongs spenders.
Because the spenders keep happily putting their financial futures on the line, our economy is humming right now. The example of Japan that someone else raised earlier is apt. Also, is it unrealistic to hope that as the spenders' debts eventually catch up to them, they'll sell their assets below market rates, or some of their homes will be foreclosed, providing opportunities for the savers? Another consequence a lot of the spenders will have to deal with is their inability to retire. That could have both good and bad consequences for the savers, so I'm not sure which way it cuts.
On the other hand, I recognize it is true that when the spenders become too powerful, they can demand various kinds of forgiveness and welfare from the government to help them avoid the consequences of their own actions. For example, they can demand tax breaks for people with big families, even though it's their own fault they had more kids than they could afford and spent their money unwisely. And they can demand that gas prices stay unrealistically low despite all the costs that entails--costs that must be borne by the taxpayers (military forces defending the oil flow, environmental costs, etc.).
All in all, there are a lot of factors to consider, but I like that smug feeling I get from not being one of the teeming hordes of people going into hock to buy wall-sized plasma TVs and similarly frivolous shiny things.
