The thing about the concept of a very rich man ‘losing’ $200bn is that if this sum can be ‘lost’ rather than spent, transferred, or stolen, it really calls into question its existence in the first place, and from there you start to wonder about the reality of large sums of money at all.

That is one of the qualities of money, that small amounts are extremely tangible (that $20 in your wallet, those coins in the tray with your keys), but the larger the quantity the more intangible and subject to weird philosophical ideas it is

All the economists insist that yes, the ‘household budget’ metaphor for national economies is wrong. Countries don’t have to save for the future in the same way you or I do because they can print money, and ‘savings’ are for countries are really also opportunities lost.

But what the ‘household’ metaphor reveals is that most people struggle to conceptualise money in the large scale, because it really is less and less real the more of it you try to think about

@liamvhogan fun thing to do is go on my “money isn’t real” rant to people who think they are very smart. They’ll always assume you mean “printing money is a way to have more money” and start on the inflation lecture.
@Kels_316 @liamvhogan is that the "money is only real because we all agree it's real" rant?
@grissallia @liamvhogan that’s the general gist, combined with “governments can create money any time they need it. They chose to do so for the things they want (like submarines), and not for the things they don’t (like social projects)”
@grissallia @Kels_316 this argument does not work on landlords, electricity companies, subcontractors, etc.

@liamvhogan @Kels_316 Maybe I just haven't approached it the right way with my landlord...

"You have a house that you don't need that's appreciating in value. We're helping to keep the value from depreciating by living in it and keeping it clean, and the lawns mowed. I think that's a fair deal, without money needing to change hands."