National economies are not households. My spending is your income, and your spending is my income. You can talk about "investment" all you want but without consumer spending there's never any return on that investment and so no one will bother.

Having household savings is good but at a certain point it bottlenecks the economy.

True, but it doesn't seem to really be the problem right now. The overwhelming majority of people don't need to be told to spend money. If they have it, they'll spend it on stuff, for better or worse.

Looking back at the past half century the big variables that have changed to get us here seem to be A) lack of world wars to devastate Europe B) rising automation leading to skyrocketing worker productivity C) society's wealth becoming increasingly concentrated within a billionaire class and D) relatively flat wage growth to spite B. There are also probably a few other's I'm missing too.

TLDR seems like there's a bigger picture to the macroeconomic situation than just spending and saving at the moment. I'm really curious to see how this will shake out going forward.

Apparently Germans do need to be told to spend money.

Do you object to people being employed, being productive, and creating value?

Because the way you get that is by spending on it.

This is a really dangerous fallacy.. If you genuinely believe this then you don't even have the economic high-ground.

But a small high level lesson is clearly due, just in-case you attract people who aren't sure.

I can only comment democratic government, so: The government is not responsible for your individual job, your employer is, a government is responsible to make sure you have access to a job, or the ability to create one. After 1 of those requirements has been passed, you pay tax to ensure others can do the same.

Another responsibility of the government is to ensure that the pensions are looked after, probably one of the biggest these days thanks to 'boomers', but they are none the less responsible for it. Thats why the retirement age is decided by government.

Another one they need to look after, trade options, within Europe we're quite lucky, we have a free trade and have all round standards of what we can trade.

Another is infrastructure, if I want to trade a lot, I need infrastructure, if I have a lot of savings; for the people, I will invest in that, thus contributing to all the above.

So: Your question is a joke I guess, mainly because you don't back anything up by your claims.

If you think all you said, lay it out, lets discuss, maybe I'm wrong.

Spending does't necessarily mean wasting money on short-term consumption. They could also spend on sustainability and infrastructure.

And I really hate the moralizing as if the national economy needs to be run like a household budget.

I think the moralizing is useful if it means future generations aren't going to pay the price for today's profligacy.

This extremely poor misunderstanding of macroeconomics is likely to lead to the outcome you're supposedly trying to avoid.

So... when does the music stop? Some kind of debt jubilee or currency reissue?

Instead future generations are going to pay for today's economic ideology

Creating debt is taking money from the future. There are some discrepancies between running a business and a national economy, but I think the results are still pretty unknown.

When anyone tells you that you should spend your money more, you should have a red flag.