> Which is exactly the same as "my wealth was constant and my neighbor's grew"
> Which is exactly the same as "my neighbor's the same and my wealth decreased
No, not even remotely true. This is a fixed sum view of wealth that assumes the only way to obtain wealth is to take it from someone else.
Say I have a 3,000 sq ft house on a quarter acre lot, and so does my neighbor. My neighbor's company has a successful IPO and he sells his equity to buy a 6,000 sq ft house on a half acre lot, then how has my wealth decreased?
If you have no raise and your neighbor have a raise, then you are poorer
It may be easier to understand globally: if you have no raise but everybody have a raise, then you are poorer (because everything cost more, but you have no raise)
> If you have no raise and your neighbor have a raise, then you are poorer
This is just factually wrong. If my neighbor gets a raise and I don't, and stuff costs the same amount then I have not gotten poorer. If my neighbor doubled his income tomorrow, how would I be any poorer? In theory, you could argue that his higher income results in inflation, but that's only the case if total productivity doesn't match the increase in the money supply.
Wealth is not zero sum: inflation adjusted wealth has increased over time: more houses and cars get built, more advanced industries increase productivity, etc. Wealth is not a fixed pie, the total amount of wealth in the world increases.
> The numbers may always go up but the things that can be exchanged does not.
No, the things that can be exchanged for money does go up. More houses get built, more cars are manufactured, etc. The total value of goods in the economy increases.
You are absolutely right: after all, you repeated the same things multiple time so it must be true
Yes indeed, every body can have everything. In the end, everybody will have a palace near the beach, everybody will have a mansion with a qualitative neighborhood, everybody can have a mona lisa at home
You realize there's a vast gap between "everyone can have everything" and "the things that can be exchanged for money is static"?
We don't live in a post-scarcity society, but we also don't live in a world where economic output is zero sum.
If you have a 3 bedroom house, and your neighbor builds a palace on the beach, you still have a 3 bedroom house. Nothing was taken from you, someone else created a new asset.
Which is exactly the same as "my neighbor's the same and my wealth decreased"
Which is exactly the same as "getting siphoned to the rich"
Money have no intrinsic value: its only value is relative the others (and also depends on what can be bought ..)