The popular notion is that we are "so" much wealthier today than people were in the first part of the 20th century, but the facts simply do not bear this out. It's true that innovation and technological development have been advanced by the debt-based economy, but the day-to-day lives of everyday people are decidedly worse off.
The fact is, by a considerable margin more people are in debt today than were in debt 100 years ago. Despite the popular notion propagated by modern so-called economists, debt is not a good thing. Debt is an obligation, and a claim on the rest of a person's property. Savings is at this point an almost peculiar, historic practice, despite it's role in individual self-sufficiency and in securing one's future. Savings is a practical impossibility under a paper currency regime, for the very simple and deductible fact that since it is so easily produced, it will be; and therefore it is inevitably susceptible to devaluation. Parenthetically, this is why such a currency regime is so favored by governments - it allows the government to hold out the candy bag, without ever demanding much in payment.
The fact is, if we are so much wealthier today than people of 100 years ago, why is it that it now takes 2 "incomes" to sustain a marginal standard of living for your average 4 person family? Aside from the admitted advancements in technology (and of course ignoring for the sake of argument the fact that as technologies advance in a free market they generally speaking become more and more affordable -- see personal computers, lasik eye surgery and cell phones for a few examples), there is no real argument against the destructive nature of fiat currencies. (I'd also take issue with the "advancements in technology" theory... the advancements people experienced in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were almost as stark and dramatic, perhaps even moreso, than what we have experienced in the 2nd half of the 20th century; but again, for the sake of argument...)
We hear that a return to a commodity based currency would herald a terrible economic collapse, and there may be a measure of truth to it, but the fact is, a terrible economic collapse will inevitably come, because an infinitely depreciating currency is a mathematical impossibility; it is also inevitable that once the fiat regime collapses, people will return to trading goods and services at equal value (as opposed to a dictated value). So the "yeah but" is effectively a fait accompli.
And yes I know I indicated I wouldn't comment. I've kept it apolitical, and quite factual. Whatever positives "we" have experienced as a consequence of being forced to operate under a fiat currency regime, they are far outweighed by the net negatives. Gone are the days that a person with a fairly rudimentary education but practical manual skills can provide a comfortable standard of living for even the modern 2 or 3 person family as had been the norm in the not too distant past. Gone are the days when a person could set aside 10% of his income and be relatively secure in his future. Gone are the days when a person could imagine being free and clear in all his possessions. Today, it is a practical impossibility to provide a comfortable standard of living on a single higher-education based income, let alone two. Securing one's future now means gambling a percentage of one's income on the stock market, where 20% losses every decade are now the norm since the inception of the debt based economy. It works out great if you manage to miss the downturn, but if you were planning on retiring in 2008, how well did it work out? Debt is of course the standard for most families, even well into the latter years when a they should be looking to be secure in their property.
The debt based economy can be best described for the average person in one word: insecurity.