• @philthi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1625 days 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
      425 days 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
        9
        edit-2
        25 days 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
          325 days 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
            625 days 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.