They invest in companies. Take a look at the annual report for any public corporation. The category of "Expenses" is what gets spent on plant, equipment, salaries, interest, etc.
Roughly speaking, "Profit" is Revenue minus Expenses. Profit accrues to the investors. If the Profit turns out to be less than zero, that loss is attached to the investors.
> It isn't like they are buying millions of dollars worth of locally sourced items in their communities every day of the year.
The companies they invest in do.
Within limits. "Limitation of liability" circumscribes the investors' exposure to loss. The loss may also be attached to creditors, workers, and the general public.
Poor people spend close to 100% of their income on consumption, middle class people a little less, and up into the billionaires we're looking at less than 1%.
They "move money" in other ways, but I think the key here is that those other ways are just necessarily less economically stimulating.
I agree. And further, the whole concept of "trickle down economics" always seemed like a propaganda scam to me -- I mean, how much _do_ the exceptionally wealthy even spend when going about their daily lives? And how much of that just ends up going to other super wealthy people anyway (private jets, yachts, fashion, etc)?
It isn't like they are buying millions of dollars worth of locally sourced items in their communities every day of the year.