Now imagine all that opportunity, plus a much less competitive business environment and fewer regulations. That is what it was like 50 years ago in the US.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/popu...
It’s also my opinion that the internet and use of computers and high speed communications have led to more market efficiency and less arbitrage opportunities. In decades past, an individual might have been more likely than now to notice and take advantage of an inefficiency, whereas now the bigger players have access to much more data about the market, satellite imagery, pricing and sales information, etc so that they are competing on all levels.
That's why we put the regulations in place. We can argue there are too many, but just smashing the current system is no way to restore anything. And it hasn't - we're back to worse than we were during the gilded age.
Poverty levels tells a different story.
2. The proper basis for comparison for the iterative generation of wealth and productivity isn't the past, it's the reasonable alternatives at the same time in development.
Imagine you and I start with 100 coins each.
In Scenario A, I take 30 of your coins. Then we fight each other and fritter away 10 coins each. Then our respective coin volume doubles. I end up with 240 coins. You end up with 120. We're both better off than in the past. In total, we have 360 coins.
In Scenario B, I steal all your coins. Without any coins, you can't fight me, so neither of us loses any further coins. Our coin volume doubles. I end up with 400 coins.
In Scenario C, I don't steal your coins and because we're not busy fighting each other, no losses occur. We both end up with 200 coins. In total we have 400 coins.
I think the lesson here is self evident, and that's without raising the fact that growth slows and societies collapse due to wealth disparities. If the simple thought experiment isn't enough and you'd like something a bit more involved, read up on the history and philosophy surrounding our transition away from the feudal system. Our distaste of titled hereditary privilege was very well deserved.
Freedom is better than control. It leaves everyone better. Control will kill us all.
I don't really believe that, but it is an analog to your "is self evident" claim. Except I think your belief is much stronger.
Only thing worse ae the pensioners, who complain that there's "too much choice" in the stores... how they used to have one chocolate (which didn't have enough cocoa to actually be a chocolate), and now theres 3/4 of an aisle of just chocolates... the chocolate they used to buy is still there, but it's shitty compared to other stuff, then they buy a milka and complain that Lindt is too expensive...
According to this article [0] Jeff Bezos net worth is $188.7 billion. His shares of Amazon represent $172.8 billion. While unlikely, if Amazon stock plummeted he would have "only" $15.9 billion. While still a lot on its own, the vast majority of his money is not even usable (immediately).
[0] https://marketrealist.com/p/how-many-shares-of-amazon-does-j...
The rules were changed, removing limits on sizes of banks and lenders, interest rates, how much the boss can skim, treatment of pension funds and on and on and on. All in the interest of, those with money get more money. To the point they have almost all the money.
It's irrelevant how much cash they have on hand. They own the economy, lock stock and barrel. The rest of us can only hope for a small stream to cover our expenses and little else.
This has been covered by literally thousands of articles. I suggest reading something, anything on the subject.
How do you explain all of the successful people that started from nothing, and got to where they are now?
So what solution do you propose? Do they not deserve the money they made? The majority of businesses fail, don't the ones that succeed deserve a reward?
It doesn't change anything.
Everyone is better off and there are some that are, because of the system that made it better for everyone one, much better off.
Just a symptom of a system that benefits all.
Which business environment? The competitiveness is absolutely not universal across all markets in the US. There are plenty of markets that aren't competitive at all.
My point is that there are always highly competitive markets and markets with a lot of slack in them. Not to mention brand new markets that have never existed before.
Could have stopped there. Looks to me like the big chains drove out the ma & pa businesses. Now the online giants are driving out them.