More important, I asked you to explain logically why money invested in equities is not a form of savings. You have given no logical explanation; all you have done is make a bald assertion that's even at odds with the Government's definition of "savings."
People seem fixated on this government definition of savings and notion that anything not allocated to consumables is savings.
I have already explained why logically it's not savings; its not protected. At least cash held in savings account isn't subject to daily fluctuations. Cash invested in stocks is.
There are far too many folks who wake up, heck their current portfolio value and say 'wow I've saved a ton of money, look at all my savings in my stocks', then the next day there's some piece of bad news and they are crying that thy've lost money. Neither are true you've neither profited nor lost until you sell. If the princible investment is not protected it isn't savings.
Then of course we have mutual funds, the problem with these however is that in instances of major market changes it's far too tough to get out of these before incuring a loss and without fees for getting out. If the princible investment is not protected it isn't savings.
Calling these non protected investments savings is naive, and the government calling them such is deceptive.
The government has been making stupid assumptions about stocks being savings for years. The same act which gave birth to the IRA gave birth to one of the stupidest and most anti-market policies. At a specific age all 401k holders must begin withdrwing from their plan. Thus when all the babyboomers with 401ks hit that age (I beleive its 70) an enormous class of folks MUST beging liquidating their market holdings.
Does that sound good for the market to you?