One of the thoughts that stimulated this topic has to do with population growth and wealth. If, at a given time, a finite amount of wealth exists, and the population grows, then that wealth, per capita, will be diluted.
This is why it matters what wealth is, and how it is created. As the population grows, if more real wealth is not created, then humanity as a whole becomes poorer. So a situation like the stock market, where wealth is "traded", but not necessarily created, and debt, where there may be an assumption that the borrowed capital will be used to create more physical wealth, but not a guarantee (and the interest on the debt being likely a bleed on the possible new wealth created), may not create real new wealth, but only cause inflation. Inflation is not a source of new wealth, it is merely a mechanism of dilution.
In an earlier post I speculated that new wealth is most likely tied to the conversion of natural resources into new material things, which are often accounted as new wealth. But if that conversion of natural resources is accompanied by unaccounted externalized costs, then it may not be a real increase of wealth, but a decrease.
What has actually happened is that wealth and population both grew, but wages stagnated, so the top 1-3% all got rich like pharaohs while everyone has had a slow but measurable decline in their quality of life.
In addition, the same bastards are milking people harder than ever. You take a look at "bank fees" in 1980 vs now. Or even more outrageously, things like APS (in Phoenix, but soon everywhere) putting demand charges on household electrical accounts. Which means you still get the same service you always had, only now you pay $150 more per month.
