3 ms·
That doesn't seem so bad. It would be valid to say that the top charioteer's share of the total wealth of the world is comparable to someone with $15 billion to
by landryraccoon 10y ago
That doesn't seem so bad. It would be valid to say that the top charioteer's share of the total wealth of the world is comparable to someone with $15 billion today. As long as you think of it as wealth relative to peers, the comparison stands. By your logic, inflation adjusted numbers for say, box office hits like Star Wars and Gone with the Wind are meaningless because people couldn't use the money to buy cell phones or laptop computers.
- MichaelBurge 10y agoI hadn't considered that, but it's probably true. A Disney movie turning revenue of $10 million with a sequel is probably more valuable than a no-name company turing revenue of $10 million with a surprise hit. So $10 million isn't even the same amount as $10 million, because the banks or potential investors won't necessarily assume that you could repeat it. Or if you found $100 million in a briefcase and asked Donald Trump to build you a skyscraper, it would go further than if you tried to do it yourself, because he could stick his name on it and get more funding. This doesn't really apply to small amounts of money(less than $1k), because all you can buy there are consumer goods(i.e. commodities). So to a consumer, $50 is as good as any other $50. And cost-of-living estimates for ancient Rome are probably reasonably accurate when translated. I guess what I'm saying is that wealth is dependent on what you can actually do with it. So descriptions like, "The charioteer had enough money to buy a quarter of all the farmland in Rome" is a better description of his wealth than "The charioteer had the equivalent of $x billion in USD", which doesn't convey how he could spend it.