I'm pretty sure the phrase was just used in terms of the nature of a free market.

Are you suggesting that because the U.S. stock market has risen during the tiny blip in history that the U.S. has been an uncontested world superpower, we can expect it to rise forever?

What else would you have us expect? That when the US is no longer relevant, and the stock market is permanently declining, that somehow a stash of dollars will be meaningful?

No, for all practical purposes, go ahead and expect it to rise forever. Anything that would make that untrue would make your investment balance unimportant.

> What else would you have us expect?

I wouldn't expect unsubstantiated claims that have no basis in reality to be stated as plain fact, as in:

> the trend over a decade or more will always be "up".

This statement is demonstrably falsifiable since we've had several decades where the inflation-adjusted returns of the stock market are negative.

> Anything that would make that untrue would make your investment balance unimportant.

I'm sorry, but reframing your false statement in terms of a false dichotomy (the either the U.S. stock market is going up, or your investments are worthless) does not make things right. The double-negative rule doesn't apply here.

How to Protect Your Life Savings from Hyperinflation & Depression, 2nd edition by John T. Reed

http://johntreed.com/hyperinflationdepression.html

In that case you would invest in assets, not cash or stocks. A chunk of land with a garden and a couple of goats would be very handy when a loaf of bread costs $10 billion at the store.

Yes, exactly, I have 3 acres, 8 goats, 30 chickens, bees, 14 fruit trees, and lots of gardens boxes. I would love it if my investments grow, but I'm covered in extreme cases either way.

(And I have my own well and produce my own solar power to boot.)

Then what if you invested in a bread factory? You'll be part owner of a business that can sell it's wears for $10 billion.

The $10 billion in that scenario isn't worth any more than ~$3 is today, so it's not actually as lucrative as it sounds. :) Plus because there's hyperinflation happening, the $10 billion you sold your bread for may not be enough to even buy a cup of flour tomorrow, so it's actually worse than owning a bread factory now. It would be better to keep the bread, which will be worth $25 billion tomorrow, except that bread goes bad eventually. So instead of holding bread, you hold assets that don't lose value over time. You don't want to get caught holding this hyperinflating cash because it devalues so quickly. So either you trade your assets directly for other things that you need, or use a different currency that isn't going crazy.

It seems a bread factory might be such an asset. But too big for most people to own individually.

Yup it certainly could be, although it loses value in the form of maintenance costs and can only earn value in the form of bread. So if you can find good bread-trading partners or can sell your bread for non-devaluing currency then that can work out.