Comment by beloch | Hacker News Reader

Comment by beloch | Hacker News Reader

In ancient Rome, the gap between the rich and the poor was even more obscene that it is now. Despite having such a low GDP, Rome's wealthiest private citizens were as rich, or richer, than the richest of today. For example, Marcus Licinius Crassus' net worth was estimated to be up to double that of Bill Gates.

Was Crassus an ancient Bill Gates though? Not so much. Rome's wealthiest mostly obtained their fortunes from conquest. Crassus, on the other hand, made his fortune by taking advantage of his peers. For example, during Sulla's dictatorship, Crassus would buy the estates of other citizens after they fell victim to Sulla's proscriptions for pennies on the dollar. He even snuck the names of wealthy individuals onto the proscription lists just so he could plunder their estates! Crassus also, famously, ran a fire brigade that would show up to fires and then refuse to put them out until the owner of the burning property sold out to Crassus for cheap.

For a society of mafia warrior lawyers, the Romans sure let each other get away with murder.

Can we really compare wealth between people who lived 2000 years apart though? The amount of material goods a relatively poor middle class American can afford is vastly greater than what the richest Romans could buy 2000 years ago. How do you compare net worth?

Some things haven't changed: land, control over people.

Another way to measure wealth in a comparable way is the proportion of the economic production someone is able to control.

Land hasn't changed, but the right to own it certainly did. In the late roman republic state owned some land but most of it was owned by large estates of slave owners. And working the land or being in the military was mostly the only way to make a living.

So land was a much more important commodity, therefore I don't think you can't compare it reasonably with today.

> In ancient Rome, the gap between the rich and the poor was even more obscene that it is now.

Take those calculations for what you will, but according to papers like these ancient Rome acutally had a comparable Gini index to today's US:

https://doi.org/10.3815/007543509789745223

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDECINEQ/Resources/Anci...

I think Crassus would trade places with the average middle class person in the modern world if given the chance. The level of luxury, safety and health we take for granted was beyond the emperors of Rome.

> The level of luxury, safety and health we take for granted was beyond the emperors of Rome.

This is objectively true, but what if being satisfied with your life has more to do with being better off than your neighbours than with being objectively wealthy?

This is true when you have a comparison to make. Imagined we asked a Roman emperor if he wanted to trade his position for what we have - I doubt he would hesitate for long to say yes.

I know I would not trade my admittedly slightly above average life for the life of any Roman.

> Imagined we asked a Roman emperor if he wanted to trade his position for what we have - I doubt he would hesitate for long to say yes.

I don't feel so confident he would take that decision - not if he knew he would become one peasant among millions - and I certainly don't feel so confident that he'd be happy with that decision five or ten years on.

He may regret his decision, but if the offer was what we have, not where we rank, I am sure he would be very interested.

We take for granted so much that was beyond the richest and most powerful people in history. Just being able to sleep safely in bed without fear of being killed while you slept was something that was beyond almost all emperors.

How do you compare the wealth of Crassus us with Bill Gates?

E.g. proportional share of wealth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com