With any luck, what will happen is that future people will benefit from all those riches and success.

It's like the property market, if everyone has so much money the number of people who can live in Malibu doesn't actually go up. Just the prices of homes in Malibu go up.

Only if you define "the good stuff" as "the best stuff." If you define "the good stuff" relative to a subsistence farming or hunter-gatherer lifestyle, the median person today in a developed country is arguably richer than the richest person in town 50 years ago, the richest person in the country 100 years ago, and the richest person on the planet 500 years ago.

That's strange, revolutions have been the some of the most acute moments that improved things for the world population and brought rights to the common people. I'd definitely not want to live through one because it sucks for those during it, but it's great for those that come after.

Well, sometimes… Sometimes it ends up in a brutal dictatorship until the next revolution, which may or may not end up improving things.

Any benefit, IMHO, comes purely from starting over. Any revolution benefit can be achieved through debt purge, elevating those in precarious state and break any fast feedback loops that led us to that point.

Breaking things is very difficult. The status quo would not be the status quo unless a significant part of the people in power wanted it. This means that there is always a significant resistance to overcome, which requires very strong incentives, which historically tends to be despair or starvation. In other words, revolutions.

> Any benefit, IMHO, comes purely from starting over

So you do see how it improves something :)

As for examples, read a bit of history, they are not hard to find.

I should read some history books of that, surely.

Here, I'll leave you one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution

I don't even think you're wrong in your dislike of revolutions, like I said, I was clear in saying I don't want to live through one, but the extreme view that nothing good every happened is simply, blind.

Saying "fucking" isn't throwing a tantrum. Nor is pointing out something as an example of historical illiteracy calling somebody names.

Now that we are on the same page can you present your arguments on how what happened on January 6th is a revolution and how Magna Carta was not brought about by a revolution?

That's a common misconception, but the first three (original, 1830, 1848) French revolutions were failures. They paved the way for future improvements, and established important precedents like human rights and equality... but materially for the average person little changes because of the revolutions. The revolution with the biggest impact in France was undoubtedly the Industrial one, which brought social and economic mobility on a large scale.

When actual peasants revolted, as in the Vendee, the result was what some call a genocide. Against the peasants. By the French Republic.

France continued to see revolutions, "reactions", and Napoleon because the Revolution did not make things better. It was quite some time before that happened for most people.

So I think in general, revolutions are high risk high reward gambles. The rare ones that work out and align with the needs of the population make important strides for humanity, but most revolutions fail or are corrupted and end up a net negative for the society.

It's what you do after that matters. If you keep on repeating the same mistake and never change the systems that led to the political instability in the first place, then you are bound to have the same results.

It doesn’t because the insurer doesn’t pay $500k.

Not to mention that if something costs $10k in the US that costs $5k in Europe, that $5k that doesn’t get spent on something else (which would also increase GDP)

US in-patient costs are about double that of the European average.

An ICU bed that is $1,000 per day in Europe, is around $2,000 in the US.

But the hospital will have a charge master price of $10,000 per day.

Insurance company negotiate agreed charges that are often 80-90% lower.

That’s the number that contributes to GDP.

Anyway, that's another topic and you are right that for the GDP purposes the spent per capita is a good metric. Which is still on the point, the same service costs at least twice as much resulting in useless numbers if you are trying to use GDP as a productivity metric(or anything humane, in fact).

We see a similar thing in Turkey for example when you use PPP(which is supposed to be an improvement). Turkey's PPP is quite high now, meaning that the Turkish lira is strong and on average Turks are supposed to be slightly richer than neighboring EU country Bulgaria. In reality, Turks are miserable because some basic stuff is taxed to extremes and the market is captured by a few groups and to achieve a Bulgarian lifestyle in Turkey you actually have to pay 2X or 3X.

Maybe we just should stop looking and these stats for a proxy to other stuff altogether. They don't work, just use whatever you are looking directly.