Posted on 05/08/2017 8:00:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
“The fact that there were no such restaurants would not bother you because in 1916 you had never heard of those dishes, so you would not know what you were missing.”
What, people can’t read? If someone was rich in 1916/17, they might very well have heard of such dishes because of their travels, talking to other people who had traveled, etc. Other people might have known about the dishes simply by reading about them in publications.
Geo. Will tries again to write something worth reading, and fails.
Money is power. A billion dollars is an awful lot of it, in 1916 or now.
In 1916 the top tax rate was 15%, most people only paid 2%, and you could order guns in a catalog and have them sent through the mail.
In 1916, you weren’t forced to pay for welfare for 50% of the country.
I’m sure there are plenty more benefits....
If you’re an old man and your hobbies are eating out and watching entertainment George Will is right. If you’re a normal person who enjoys life, he’s wrong.
I saw something like this piece several months ago. I think the author is off-base. Being able to get many modern things (sometimes only in very small quantities) is not a sign of wealth on our part as individuals. It is a sign of the collective wealth of our society reflected in diversified specialization. A “billionaire” a century ago might not have had as easy access to Chinese food as we do but if he wanted he could have imported a Chinese cook and an entire staff to serve it to him 365 days a year. I can’t do that. Yes, his railway car had no air conditioning and my car does. The difference is he could own the entire railway and literally shift rail traffic to make his trip easier. I can’t get other cars off the road and I sure as hell don’t own the road. That’s the difference between being a REAL owner of wealth and being a mere taster of wealth.
George Will is dead to me. He has nothing to say that I would waste 2 minutes reading.
George Will joins MSNBC and NBC News. I guess he’ll fit right in.
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/332335-george-will-joins-msnbc-nbc-news-report
George Will wasting ink and server space again.....................
See post #9.
No Colt 45 or 357 magnums
” I think the author is off-base. “
So you would want to go back to 1916? I think not.
Two words:
Evelyn.
Nesbit.
His point is invalid.
No,not this time.Yes,it's true that this piece isn't of vital importance but it's interesting (to me,at least) to ponder the points made.
Sorry, the colt 45 did exist in 1916. And back then it was actually a good gun.
Gatling guns and Maxims were. I’d sprung for a few if I had the means then.
Otherwise titled: “Why You Should Be Happy In Your Peasantry”
“So you would want to go back to 1916? I think not.”
As a billionaire? Yeah, I might be willing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.