There's a very human tendency to define conceptual abstracts in terms of polar inverse opposites.
Light and dark. Good and evil. Black and white. Love and hate. Moral and immoral.
Its not for me to say if your depiction of "real wealth" versus "financial wealth" fits into a dualistic abstract framework.
Thank you for being a lone reply! I'm not sure how I come across, but certainly my thinking is more nuanced than my writing in most cases, as you can only fit so much into something people will read.
Certainly financial wealth is not worthless. At the beginning of the state-driven financial inflation cycle, it is, objectively speaking, usually quite conducive to growth and prosperity. It's only gradually, as time goes on, that the distortions really kick in, requiring deception to keep the system afloat, and where these efforts become destructive.
Many have said the united states has not had real economic growth in at least a decade. The rationalize circumstances such that the financial and real estate sectors growing do not represent true economic growth. Others view derivatives and overprinting of money as not representing real wealth or value. I think you might be on to something with "fake wealth" being redefined to represent "true wealth".
It could be a version of that 'comparative advantage' thing... The US does a good and cheap job at 'manufacturing' money and financial assets. The emerging markets do so with real goods. So they take our money and we take their goods. This is classic 'free trade' and works as long as no one thinks about how much more financial wealth exists than real wealth, at current prices.
There may be some misinformation campaigns in place to leverage a publics collective lack of knowledge and education.
This has been the case throughout modern history. Plus, the modern state-bank alliance is good at dividing the world public into groups and giving each an appropriate share of the loot, to keep them quiet. The British and American populations were big beneficiaries at the early stages of their respective empires. (And so are Bitcoin holders today!)
But, trust me, all of this 'benefit' will come back to bite the 'beneficiaries.' Including members of the elites themselves. There's got to be an immutable law somewhere, that says we lose happiness, the more we live apart from reality and from fairness with each other. Of this, I can't spell out a proof, but I have a strong feeling this is the case.
The publicity campaign against bitcoin and crypto could represent one of said campaigns.
Jamie Dimon may just be trying to cool the Bitcoin market a bit. He said the same thing when Bitcoin was in the low hundreds.
The major signs I see of elite promotion of cryptos are:
- The price rise. This speaks volumes when the elites could have killed it with laws.
- The unknown buyer of cryptos shelling out $60 million at a time, over months. What private entity would put that kind of funds at risk?
- The BIS ('central bank of central banks') recent release of the 'new taxonomy of money' where state money is no longer solely legitimate as today's economists like to say. Instead, a plethora of monetary forms are recognized, including precious metals and cryptos. Most significantly, it states that state-issued cryptos won't compete with non-state cryptos by trying to be limited-supply.
- In the political sphere, the disappearance of talk about Bitcoin being a crime-enabler and the need to tighten control over it. The appearance (in a small way) of proposals to help cryptos.
- The SEC's quick response to the need to control the proliferation of ICOs.
- Between an essay by an ex-central-banker from South Africa and the ECB's recent announcement, it's pretty clear that the Western elites are going to adopt the narrative that cryptos' rise is simply due to market demand, and that authorities won't and shouldn't interfere. This sounds morally impeccable, but is highly misleading as a description of reality. Of course, it will benefit cryptos.