The wealthiest, BY DEFINITION, are responsible for the "vibrant economy".
There are also wealthy who do stupid things like all those VC's who forgot about the need for revenues and profit during the so-called ".COM boom" of the 90's. Big help, they were!
If the wealth isn't used, isn't pro-actively invested, is badly invested, is badly managed, leads to unemployment, disrupts an industry... this might be adding to overall economic activity but isn't necessarily leading to further wealth creation or ensuring an vibrant economy. Further, you're wrong to dismiss the idea that outside influences (9/11 depressing travel, for example) can impact an economy adversely irrespective of what the wealthy alone are doing. In fact, in the airline case, if they'd done a better job (proper cockpit doors) they'd not have allowed the circumstance which hurt the economy to begin with. Realistically speaking, the government couldn't have really acted any more effectively (you either have or don't have the human intel) but the airlines sure could have.
An economy is vibrant when there's a good match between the geo-political and economic opportunities made possible by government--through tax dollars--(i.e. a war or post war economy, getting tarifs lifted, NAFTA) and private wealth's (hopefully) wise investment.