James Ahiakpor wrote: "Surely, Henry George is mistaken in the reproduced quote. He thinks because bonds, mortgages, notes, and bank bills are concurrently assets and liabilities that their increased level does not represent an increased level of wealth in a community. But for someone to purchase those financial assets, they must have earned income. Thus these financial assets represent the (increased) savings of the community. Their purchasers are only making it possible for others to increase their own spending beyond their current levels of income. Indeed, it is in high-income communities that more of these financial assets are prevalent, not in poor communities." I am puzzled. Is it possible that real wealth remains exactly the same but the supply of fiat money created by banks increase so that the financial value of the existing wealth increases? How may I be sure that George was mistaken? What happened to the real value and nominal value distinction? Imagine that banks do not create new fiat money. But real output increases, and there is additional real savings. I wish to understand how the financial value of the financial assets will increase without an increased stock of money? Has a situation called deflation any meaning? Just puzzled. Mohammad Gani