...the ridiculous rise and fall of tulip trading in 17th century Europe

Or more recently... anybody remember Beanie Babies?

tanstaafl.

Yes it is not that poverty is more widespread, but it is the fact that our standard of living has risen. If you can't afford a car or you drive a POS hoopty buick from the eighties you are considered poor. But 200 years ago, the richest man in the world couldn't buy any car. Nobody starves to death in the US anymore. Yet, there are still many who are considered poor. I am poor by today's standards, but compared to people living 1000 years ago I live like a king. I can eat and drink all I want of pretty much any type of food or drink. I can travel hundreds of miles a day with little physical effort. I have nice clothes and air conditioned/heated shelter. I can crap in a toilet as opposed to digging a hole in the woods. And I have the freedom to live my life as I wish.

I believe in capitalism all the way, because it is fair. Corruption is not part of the system but corruption will find it's way into any system anyone creates. There are rich thieves and poor theives. In my eyes, the person holding up the local Stop 'n Rob is just as guilty as the CEO stealing 50 mil.

But 200 years ago, the richest man in the world couldn't buy any car.
But 200 years ago there were no cars. So I guess that statement is technicaly true.
OTOH, the wealthy of 1802 could definately buy luxury items to their hearts content. So if there were cars then....

Nobody starves to death in the US anymore.
I wonder about that statement. Wouldn't surprise me if that does still happen.

But I do get your point.

In reply to:

---

But 200 years ago there were no cars. So I guess that statement is technicaly true.
OTOH, the wealthy of 1802 could definately buy luxury items to their hearts content. So if there were cars then....

---

Exactly, we have increased our wealth on the planet. Being rich doesn't do you any good if there is nothing to buy...

There are rich thieves and poor theives. In my eyes, the person holding up the local Stop 'n Rob is just as guilty as the CEO stealing 50 mil.


Yeah, but only because you are either guilty of a crime, or not. There isn't any middle ground. But the guy holding up the Stop 'n' Rob (assuming he doesn't injure anyone) is only costing the store's insurance company whatever amount is in the till. The CEO is robbing peoples' pensions and investments. One will end up doing hard time, and the other will take the fifth. That is fair?

No.