There definitely is a limited number of millionaires that an economy/population can support. Also, comparing across time is rather deceptive. The north korean military is much more powerfully compared to khan or alexander's armies. The comparison is pointless considering the north korean military isn't traveling back in time to fight the mongols or the greeks. Saying middle class americans are rich compared to romans, persians or carolingians is just as meaningless. You could argue that a homeless man with a smartphone is "richer" than napoleon since the homeless man has access to more computing power, better medicine, better everything. But that's meaningless and no solace to the homeless man since he isn't traveling back to the early 1800s with current technology in his pocket. If we follow your logic, a north korean starving in a political camp is wealthier than Caesar. I guess that could be true, but meaningless and empty.

It's also a deceptive tactic people use to compare apples to oranges. We have to compare today with today and even more importantly, we have to frame money within the zero-sum context of power. Money and power are interchangeable and viewed in this context, wealth is a zero sum game.

I don't agree, because there certainly are some objective measures of well being, such as access to nutrition, clean drinking water, life expectancy, exposure to violence etc. that hold true across any age in time. Most of these measures have in general increased in the course of humankind. So a homeless man im 2018 is most likely still better off than a homeless man during the Roman empire.

I understand that human society has progressed over time. That's not what I'm disputing. What I'm pointing out is that it's meaningless to compare current situation to the past. A homeless man in 2019 is better off than everyone in the roman empire - including the emperor and the homeless. So what? How does that help the homeless man in 2019. A slave in the 1800s was wealthier than the anyone in the roman empire. So what? People in 2019 or people in the 1800s weren't living in the roman empire. The north koreans in political camps are wealthier than the emperor of roman empire. So I guess that means everything is great? It's such a deceptive and insincere comparison. People live within their time and their "wealth" should be compared within it. And more importantly, wealth should always be viewed within the context of power because ultimately, that's what wealth is.

Your opening statement is incorrect - wealth can be created, indeed that’s exactly what (good!) entrepreneurs do.

"Limited" means something very different than "fixed".

> we have to frame money within the zero-sum context of power.

You can't just throw this out there. Why? In what way is power is zero-sum?

I don't really find your example of homeless people with smart phones all that convincing. Everyone knows being homeless is horrible.

It's not even that I entirely disagree with what your saying. I'm somewhat firmly planted in the vague middle area right now. But I would like to see the arguments better supported.

Given the means by which they obtain and protect their wealth, I suspect that the people and companies at the top do view wealth as a zero-sum game.

It is very unrealistic that technological level and political organisation of Ancient Rome or Persia could create the conditions that could produce and sustain a significant part of population with the level of life somehow comparable with current Western countries.

Just because the pie is growing at f(x) doesn't mean at any given moment the pie isn't limited by x. This is why I think the zero sum vs growing pie arguments are silly, both are true.

hyperinflation can easily make everyone a millionaire!

Millionaire...Zimbabwe made me an overnight trillionaire!