Make of that what you will. Common sense says that when there's no gas in the tank, the engine stalls. When the oligarchs hoard money, the economy stalls.
The standard economic theory for decades was that, investing money in the working classes drives the economy (7 $ spent in the economy for every $1 invested by the government), while money spent on the wealthy goes into additional savings (very little reinvested in the economy). The poor spend even money (since they have little savings), but the funds are too insufficient to boost the general economy.
Economically, government subsidies of the rich/corporations make little sense (other than basic graft and campaign extortion--legislate what I want and I'll pay you).
All the counter economic arguments popular in the 80s concerning 'supply side economics' have never been borne out in real life. (I've always been a frustrated economist!)
G is government spending, and has gotten to be a much bigger part of GNP lately.
That's due more to recent downturns in the economy (GDP drops, making the share of Government spending rise even as government spending overall is dropping) rather than governmental excesses.
There was a time when big solutions worked, such as: railway networks; Hoover Dam & Panama canal; manufacturing, medical & farming advances; and belated efforts in World Wars. The low hanging fruit has all been picked. Only incremental change is possible now for most desirable goals.
It's not that all the low-hanging fruit has been picked, but that we stopped investing in capital (roads, bridges, dams, etc.) and now invest in Corporate incentives and government expenditures which grind to a halt over time due to political infighting.
Paying for new airports/roads or repairing bridges still benefits the economy, but few legislatures care enough to compromise on their partisan electioneering.
It's not going to get any better soon. Since the 'culture wars' started under Reagan, GOP legislators have been refining their tactics of intransigence and refusing to pass any bills they do not fully support.
It's got nothing to do with "bills they don't support", instead it was a strategy the U.S. Republican party adopted, stating that 'If we shut down the government, no one will blame us but instead will blame the party currently in power for accomplishing little of value'. Unfortunately, that thinking will turn around as soon as the Republicans get elected and the Democrats adapt the exact same behavior!
- Very little of such wealth is in the banks but whatever is there is used to finance manufacturing, sales, purchases ..., etc.
The big problems are the 80% rule and hospitality. 80% or more of companies fail within 3 years. Restaurants are notorious for bankruptcies. I don't know about the US but over here only about 5% of people are entrepreneurs and they invariably have great problems in raising finance which itself works against employment.
Not true. The problem is, if you have all the money you need, there's little need to spend it, so instead it'll go into investments (which often includes foreign investments in 3rd and 4th world countries.
As far as enterpeneurs going broke, it doesn't really matter in terms of investments. What matters is the return on investment, or how much money is generated by a set investment. Enterpeneurs spend lots whether they succeed or fail, while major corporation and high-paid CEOs reinvest little of their overall capital.