That reminds me of a study about the ancient Rome by Walter Schiedel et Steven Friesen (The Size of the Economy and the Distribution of Income in the Roman Empi

That reminds me of a study about the ancient Rome by Walter Schiedel et Steven Friesen (The Size of the Economy and the Distribution of Income in the Roman Empire) Link there : https://doi.org/10.3815/007543509789745223 https://doi.org/10.3815/007543509789745223 To sum it up, they studied the economy of that time and noticed a few things : the "elite" (1,5% of pop.) had about 20% of the state wealth, they studied the other classes, and reached the conclusion that the economy structure could not allow for more concentration of the wealth. And if you analyze the numbers, the inequality in the USA is more important today than it was in Rome. That's quite striking when you remember that in Rome, they had slaves, their kind of nobility, domination of vast lands and resources... I don't know where, but I read something else about Rome, and the parallels with today : - the candidate elected to an office was the one who spend the more money on 90% of the time - the draft abolition led to distancing the citizens to the blood shed in wars, and there was a rise in the use of mercenaries ("private contractors") - the empire expanding, being a citizen was not being simply a white guy born close to the country. All those three points were true for Rome and they are today true also for most of the Western countries. In Rome, it led first to the fall of the Republic, the rise of the empire, the growth of inequalities and its fall. So my guess is that all Western countries should think about it, because they all have some similarities with this society evolution course.