The underlying issue with "saving" is that the monetary system is setup in a way that forces you to invest in productive assets.

Cash, as a store of value, is awful. You're guaranteed to lose 2-3% a year.

The question becomes what, exactly, can you do with cash. In countries where most or all industries are at their or near their productivity frontiers, you have two options. You either try to push the productivity frontier out and capture as much of the resulting value as you can, or you "lend" your assets to other people or groups of people who are attempting to do so.

The issue with either option is that innovation is inherently difficult. Failure is a real possibility and success generally requires a sustained level of effort.

The benefit that the second option gives you is the opportunity to place a large number of bets without having to also actively engage in the actual innovation. That is, you have the opportunity to passively invest in a diversified portfolio.

Now, if you take the second option, the question becomes how, exactly, do you invest. There are a couple of different options here. First, you can invest in an organization that captures rents from all of the economic activity according to some criteria. This is what you do when you invest in government bonds. You're essentially placing a bet that tax revenue will grow over time, which itself is a bet that - all else being equal - the economic activity of all of the individuals and companies that pay taxes will also grow over that period of time.

Second, you can attempt to purchase individual assets. Here you're making a directional bet that the value produced by that asset will grow over time. Real estate falls into this category (although real estate is by no means passive), as do corporate bonds and stocks.

The issue with this option is that the distribution of companies that successfully create additional economic value is extremely skewed. A small number of companies succeed. Those that succeed generally don't continue to do so over time. The rest either tread water or go out of business. Now, the other issue is that there is little to no evidence that individuals are able to successfully pick in advance which companies will actually to generate additional economic value - before - others do so. That is, it's extremely difficult to outperform the market.

Third, you can invest in a large number of companies according to some screen or criteria. This is essentially what you're doing when you invest in a total market fund. That is, knowing that a large number of organizations are trying to expand their productivity frontiers and that most of them will either fail to innovate or capture the resulting value, you 1. eliminate those that are most likely to fail and 2. place a bet that some percentage of the remaining companies will succeed. This approach has historically produced returns of around 6% in the United States.

> As a non-American I can't believe how much faith people put in the stock market here. I think they're going to be a rude shock the next few decades.

Going back to my original point, money is a bad store of value. Given that almost all investable assets (including government debt) are somehow tied to economic growth, it's just a question of where in the value chain do you want to place your bets, and do you feel that you're competent enough to successfully place directional bets on individual assets (evidence shows that, without active involvement, this is essentially a loser's bet).

You have to invest in something. The question is, what, exactly, are you going to invest in?