• iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    20 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          Is it, though?

          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.

          • iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            14 hours ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              13 hours ago

              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 she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Well, no, feudalism was actually fundamentally different. Power didn’t come from money, it came from land and alliances and shit.