It is. A king could have 5,000 serfs and hey that’s a lot of serfs. But it’s nothing compared to tens of billions of dollars in an economy where most people make 35K a year. And serfs were not hot-swappable cogs like workers effectively are today. Losing a serf was a non-fungible, tangible loss.
It’s apples to oranges comparing medieval feudalism to modern global capitalism, I think it’s folly trying to say one is “better”, but the scale of the latter certainly dwarfs the former into barely perceiveable insignificance.
I wasn’t trying to argue either of them being “better”. I just presented kings vs serfs as an example of obvious wealth disparity in history, but I could have equally said roman emperor and roman slave, of which the difference in wealth would be, well, infinite really.
Is it, though? Is it wider than a king’s wealth versus a serf’s? The scale is different I agree, but is the proportion, really?
It is. A king could have 5,000 serfs and hey that’s a lot of serfs. But it’s nothing compared to tens of billions of dollars in an economy where most people make 35K a year. And serfs were not hot-swappable cogs like workers effectively are today. Losing a serf was a non-fungible, tangible loss.
It’s apples to oranges comparing medieval feudalism to modern global capitalism, I think it’s folly trying to say one is “better”, but the scale of the latter certainly dwarfs the former into barely perceiveable insignificance.
Elon Musk’s net worth is about the lifetime earnings of 280,000 people.
I wasn’t trying to argue either of them being “better”. I just presented kings vs serfs as an example of obvious wealth disparity in history, but I could have equally said roman emperor and roman slave, of which the difference in wealth would be, well, infinite really.
I know you weren’t, but if I didn’t put that disclaimer there someone would will themselves into thinking I was because this is the internet.