> The very richest king in 1630 was dead poor compared to you.
I guess it depends on how and what you compare things.
All you say is arguably true. Yet I can guarantee that in one manner, those people were as wealthy or potentially wealthier than most of the ultra-wealthy of today:
Because they owned land.
If you look at the sheer square footage of their "houses" (palaces) - not including the surrounding estate land - they tend to be very large and grandiose sprawling things.
While the ultra-wealthy of today do own a lot of land (and in some cases, perhaps more than the richest of kings back then) - the majority of people have little to none (and of those that do, most don't have the mineral rights to their land).
In that manner, there isn't much comparison. The question of whether or what is the better trade-off can be quibbled over; after all, all the land in the world back then couldn't transport one halfway across the world in hours - but some today might see that tradeoff as fair, and others back then might have traded all of their land in order to be able to stream youtube to a handheld "magical" device.
But the ultra-wealthy of today are able to have virtually everything the ultra-wealthy back then had (and in some cases, that even includes a "standing army" more or less), plus all the extras normal people have access to today.
I guess it depends on how and what you compare things.
All you say is arguably true. Yet I can guarantee that in one manner, those people were as wealthy or potentially wealthier than most of the ultra-wealthy of today:
Because they owned land.
If you look at the sheer square footage of their "houses" (palaces) - not including the surrounding estate land - they tend to be very large and grandiose sprawling things.
While the ultra-wealthy of today do own a lot of land (and in some cases, perhaps more than the richest of kings back then) - the majority of people have little to none (and of those that do, most don't have the mineral rights to their land).
In that manner, there isn't much comparison. The question of whether or what is the better trade-off can be quibbled over; after all, all the land in the world back then couldn't transport one halfway across the world in hours - but some today might see that tradeoff as fair, and others back then might have traded all of their land in order to be able to stream youtube to a handheld "magical" device.
But the ultra-wealthy of today are able to have virtually everything the ultra-wealthy back then had (and in some cases, that even includes a "standing army" more or less), plus all the extras normal people have access to today.