3 ms·
That's definitely a reasonable way to think about it. Another though is in terms of social status and ability to direct human labor, in which case most people
by Winsaucerer 1y ago
That's definitely a reasonable way to think about it. Another though is in terms of social status and ability to direct human labor, in which case most people are not more wealthy.
- Retric 1y agoOn that scale Xi Jinping is likely the richest person to ever live. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping You rarely see modern dictators on these lists but populations and economic prosperity have exploded to the point where historic kings can’t really compete.
- Winsaucerer 1y agoI actually do think of him as a candidate for wealthiest person to have ever lived.
- tonyhart7 1y agoyeah but he is "only" leader, he don't own entire china economy
- Retric 1y ago“social status and ability to direct human labor” doesn’t require ownership just control. In the US congress controls in the funding, but in a dictatorship the guy at the top can unilaterally allocate billions and then manage how it’s spent. It’s not total control of all government assets but it is control of a significant fraction of a modern economy. Just as a thought experiment, suppose he wanted to fund Doctors Without Borders or some other international charity. Do you really think he’d have trouble sending the equivalent of 1 billion USD in Chinese government funds to that org? How about 2 billion? Obviously at some point it wouldn’t work but where exactly that line is says a lot about the power he has.