I may well not be getting something here. It seems to me that money, at the core, isn't a true representation of wealth. Obviously economics is not zero-sum in

I may well not be getting something here. It seems to me that money, at the core, isn't a true representation of wealth. Obviously economics is not zero-sum in terms of wealth, but isn't it supposed to be zero-sum in terms of money? Certainly businesses aren't expected to manufacture the cash to represent the wealth they create. At the same time, I understand that banks much prefer that a loan be repaid in money, rather than raw wealth. When you fail to repay a loan and they repossess your house, that's sort of like payment in terms of raw wealth, I guess... Obviously I've got something wrong, because if the total money supply is constant but the total wealth is increasing, then money should become MORE valuable over time, not less. So, either the actual supply of money is increasing faster than the actual amount of wealth (for whatever reason) or else money doesn't actually represent wealth like it's supposed to. And if wealth and money aren't properly correlated, the daddy model of money may be very appropriate even if the daddy model of wealth is obviously wrong.