Depends on the circumstances. One can often make a friend with the Scotch. Not so easy with the .45. But if they are determined to be an enemy, then I'm right there with you.

Because their politicians? And that answers both questions - how and why.

Certainly not because they're economists. I don't think there's an economist in the whole bunch.

I don't disagree. But what's the point?

Again, from an economic perspective, value is only pertinent as it relates to trade. It has utility in feeding your body, it has no economic value in doing so. Please use the proper terms, otherwise we cannot have a meaningful interchange of ideas.

NO. This is where you need to study economics.

Wealth is the sum of value. Value is determined by the traders desires for goods.

When one trader brings a good to a trade, and a second trader brings their own goods, each must value the goods of the other more than their own goods otherwise the trade will not occur (why would I trade something that I own for something that is less valuable to me?). Thus each party must place a higher value on the items of the other than on the items that they themselves own.

So prior to the transaction each party has goods of let us say a value of 1. Total wealth of 2. After the trade each party feels that they got 1.1 value in exchange for their 1 that they traded. 2 x 1.1 = 2.2, wealth has increased.

Notice that I did not use money here at all.

Basic Austrian economics.

Ah, but economics systems are not closed, nor are they fixed. So an increase in wages mandated by the government, without an increase of like proportion in productivity, will lead to either increased prices, decreased labor, or most likely some of both. Thus, for those still employed, yes, they basically will. The problem is that there will be fewer employed.

Well, you keep demonstrating here that your economic theory is lacking. You might want to read some Mises or Hayek sometime.

Present an economics problem here and I'll give you the answer. I gave you one, but will repeat it here: How can wealth increase when the two parties that bring something to a trade have not changed the physical properties of what they have traded?

The floating dollar means that it changes in value relative to other currencies, not that it changes over time. Changes over time are called inflation/deflation and are only a function of the money supply in relation to the overall economic activity.

Let me pose a different situation to you.

How can wealth increase if the goods that two people bring to a trade do not physically change?

You're mixing up terms. Value only has context in the sense that it can be traded. My body cannot trade a meal for something else (well, actually it does, but let's not go there).

There is utility in the food. It is only valuable if I choose to trade it for something else.

Money is just a means of exchange, and a store of value. It does not have to have intrinsic value (precious metal), merely that it represents value to the parties that use it.
Shells, beads, heck, even colored washers (from my personal experience) have been used as "money." The key to an enduring money is that it be rather stabile in quantity, only increasing in relative proportion to the economic activity in which it circulates. Even fiat money can have this characteristic (such as Bitcoin) so long as it is maintained. The problem with the dollar is that this has been violated, and violated aggressively as of late.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with a floating dollar, per se. However, in the past couple of years, the Fed has intentionally kept interest rates lower than they would otherwise have been, AND have been purchasing the very securities that they use to manipulate the money supply. This is new and very troubling, and likely points to the imminent collapse of the dollar.

Nope. I'm just another engineer. I have self studied economics.