How is the idea of "r" meaning exponentially more than 1 "r" a couple of decades ago legitimate?

Let's assume you're American for this question. Now imagine that you have $100,000 USD worth of savings. In 1970, it can buy you a house, a car, a boat, a business, a trip around the world, and then some. In 2022, it can buy you a car and a boat. That's it. The money is buying *less* stuff, not more. You need 10 times the amount of money to buy the exact same things as when your grandfather was alive. <br><br>"r", meaning return on investment, is a percentage of the money you invest. So when you're talking about a 10% return on investment of $10,000 USD you're talking about $1,000 USD per year, or $100 per month. That sounds cool and all, but the reality is that $1,000 USD today isn't *really* worth as much as $1,000 USD in 2000, 1970, 1940, 1910, 1880, etc, or any point in time further in the past. You need like a 50% return on investment in real terms just to keep up with the reality of inflation or else your dollars are worth *less* than before. <br><br>So is it a total lie to say that 10% return on investment means you'll have more money than before? In reality, you didn't really "make" money, your net worth actually went down *because inflation is always more than 10% in the past, and always will be*. A 10% return of investment could *maybe* have been true in 1910 or 1880 but today 10% doesn't mean squat, because 10% doesn't mean more money, it means you're actually worse off than you were before, just that you lost *less* than other people, not more than before. <br><br>Just want to point out the systemic inequality involved in terms of the idea of return on investment and compound interest, when in reality it's actually been the complete opposite for the few last decades, 10% return on investment just means you're actually making less money in real terms. A 10% return on investment means you're not even keeping up with inflation, it doesn't mean you're making more money. <br><br>Just want to point out the inequality here, especially when you hear people that make millions of dollars from dividends from stocks, etc, when really they're just making their money appear bigger but when in reality their dollars are worth less than they were before inflation, so it's all just smoke and mirrors, and you need a 50% return on investment just to keep up with inflation, and that's just a conservative estimate.