@SteveRoth I think I agree with your characterization! (the abstract stuff, #1, #2, #3 and subtypes. I don't really have comments on different account systems different choices about what (and for whom) to capitalize as investment / "saving" and what not to. I think that depends on what you're trying to do with your accounting system. 1/

@SteveRoth I would point out, though, that even though they are conceptually distinct and not *necessarily* connected at all, there are in practice connections between #3 (mere rebalancing, swaps, churn) and real economic activity most directly impacted by #2. For example, if wealthholders in aggregate seek to churn into real estate, their bids are one way (not the only way) RE prices rise, very likely leading to new construction to bleed what would be #3 into #2 at those higher prices. 2/

@SteveRoth Most of what the very wealthy "do" with their assets is #3. But their patterns of doing that pretty directly impact both the #2A and #2B of the rest of us. Swapping from M2 to VC in sufficient scale meant the (near) death of the traditional taxi industry, for example. /fin

@SteveRoth (I guess maybe that is really #2B in your taxonomy, if we consider newly issued financial claims as new investment goods! So in that example, it's not #3 per se. But when share prices rise in a sector, there is often an increase in activity in that sector, not necessarily connected to any issuance of new shares. Mere revaluations, in practice usually resulting from "tatonnement" of asset swaps, affect real economic activity.)