History of the world, tbh. First it was hundredaires, then thousandaires, then millionaires, now billionaires. Eventually it will be trillionaires, and so on.
I mean, you're not wrong, but it's worth remembering that the scale of the difference has never been so radical. The wealth gap is wider than it has ever been.
It is. A king could have 5,000 serfs and hey that's a lot of serfs. But it's nothing compared to tens of billions of dollars in an economy where most people make 35K a year. And serfs were not hot-swappable cogs like workers effectively are today. Losing a serf was a non-fungible, tangible loss.
It's apples to oranges comparing medieval feudalism to modern global capitalism, I think it's folly trying to say one is "better", but the scale of the latter certainly dwarfs the former into barely perceiveable insignificance.
I wasn't trying to argue either of them being "better". I just presented kings vs serfs as an example of obvious wealth disparity in history, but I could have equally said roman emperor and roman slave, of which the difference in wealth would be, well, infinite really.
14 Comments
bradinutah@thelemmy.club · 48 pts · 1y
I laughed. Then I cried.
tetris11@lemmy.ml · 15 pts · 1y
I cried so hard I laughed
fluxion@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
I cried, then a Trump supporter laughed at me before getting whipped by Elon Musk for laughing on the job
bobs_monkey@lemm.ee · 26 pts · 1y
ouRKaoS@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 1y
Guest 8647 wants to get off Mr. Trump's Wild Ride
iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works · 19 pts · 1y
History of the world, tbh. First it was hundredaires, then thousandaires, then millionaires, now billionaires. Eventually it will be trillionaires, and so on.
philthi@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 1y
I mean, you're not wrong, but it's worth remembering that the scale of the difference has never been so radical. The wealth gap is wider than it has ever been.
iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1y
Is it, though? Is it wider than a king's wealth versus a serf's? The scale is different I agree, but is the proportion, really?
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 8 pts · 1y
It is. A king could have 5,000 serfs and hey that's a lot of serfs. But it's nothing compared to tens of billions of dollars in an economy where most people make 35K a year. And serfs were not hot-swappable cogs like workers effectively are today. Losing a serf was a non-fungible, tangible loss.
It's apples to oranges comparing medieval feudalism to modern global capitalism, I think it's folly trying to say one is "better", but the scale of the latter certainly dwarfs the former into barely perceiveable insignificance.
Windex007@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1y
Elon Musk's net worth is about the lifetime earnings of 280,000 people.
iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1y
I wasn't trying to argue either of them being "better". I just presented kings vs serfs as an example of obvious wealth disparity in history, but I could have equally said roman emperor and roman slave, of which the difference in wealth would be, well, infinite really.
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 1y
I know you weren't, but if I didn't put that disclaimer there someone would will themselves into thinking I was because this is the internet.
queermunist@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1y
Well, no, feudalism was actually fundamentally different. Power didn't come from money, it came from land and alliances and shit.
Kualdir@feddit.nl · 5 pts · 1y
🥲