>But it misses the underlying point of wealth creation: if more people create more wealth, then naturally, there should be less poverty. There is tremendously

>But it misses the underlying point of wealth creation: if more people create more wealth, then naturally, there should be less poverty. There is tremendously less poverty in the world now than 50 or 100 years ago: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/10/05/for-the-first-time-less-than-10-percent-of-the-world-is-living-in-extreme-poverty-world-bank-says/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/10/05.... There's only more poverty if it's defined in a purely relative sense, but the relative definition of poverty is only relevant to ideological arguments and pandering to peoples' envy, not to describing peoples' actual material quality of living.