4 ms·

Making the trading classes rich did not make the country or the median person rich. That was, like, the problem. (Or if it did make the country rich, you'll no

Making the trading classes rich did not make the country or the median person rich. That was, like, the problem. (Or if it did make the country rich, you'll notice it wasn't good for anything, as they aren't any richer now.)

defrost 3y ago
> it wasn't good for anything, as they aren't any richer now. No such thing as a pendulum because they swing back? Seems a very flawed position given the well documented wealth and power of the British Empire upon which once the sun never set. Like the USofA and every other country peak positions never last, but we don't therefore claim that they never existed, and the wealth is never evenly distributed, what varies are parameters of the curve of wealth distribtion.
- astrange 3y ago
  > No such thing as a pendulum because they swing back? Wouldn't call it swinging back when nobody went back. They weren't replaced by another empire and didn't become poorer. Everyone instead became richer so fast that various bad ideas of the past were simply irrelevant. > Seems a very flawed position given the well documented wealth and power of the British Empire upon which once the sun never set. It's like "history is written by the victors"; don't believe them just because they liked to talk about it. Where do you see it here? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RGDPFCUKA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RGDPFCUKA Note, most things they'd like to claim are wealth end up being a drag economically because of capitol depreciation - ie, if you can afford to pay for a giant mansion, now you have to pay to maintain it forever. > the wealth is never evenly distributed, what varies are parameters of the curve of wealth distribtion. No, my point is total wealth matters. You can grow your way out of inequality, and you will, that's why creating more inequality is a waste of time.

defrost 3y ago

> it wasn't good for anything, as they aren't any richer now. No such thing as a pendulum because they swing back? Seems a very flawed position given the well documented wealth and power of the British Empire upon which once the sun never set. Like the USofA and every other country peak positions never last, but we don't therefore claim that they never existed, and the wealth is never evenly distributed, what varies are parameters of the curve of wealth distribtion.

astrange 3y ago
> No such thing as a pendulum because they swing back? Wouldn't call it swinging back when nobody went back. They weren't replaced by another empire and didn't become poorer. Everyone instead became richer so fast that various bad ideas of the past were simply irrelevant. > Seems a very flawed position given the well documented wealth and power of the British Empire upon which once the sun never set. It's like "history is written by the victors"; don't believe them just because they liked to talk about it. Where do you see it here? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RGDPFCUKA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RGDPFCUKA Note, most things they'd like to claim are wealth end up being a drag economically because of capitol depreciation - ie, if you can afford to pay for a giant mansion, now you have to pay to maintain it forever. > the wealth is never evenly distributed, what varies are parameters of the curve of wealth distribtion. No, my point is total wealth matters. You can grow your way out of inequality, and you will, that's why creating more inequality is a waste of time.