Replies

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.

I agree- ridiculous premise.

He never mentioned music and theater either: the opera, plays, symphonies, jazz etc. And a billionaire could hire them to perform in his home or buy out the place for a night.

And telegrams were available if you had no phone.

Clearly he never watched Downton Abbey- I know it was England, but they had wealthy Americans in the story as well. They didn’t look like they were suffering much if at all IMHO.

This reads like a high school term paper; barely researched and written because he had to write something!

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.

The fundamental import of the article, IMHO, is the success of

Article 1 Section 8.:
The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
American socialists style themselves “progressives,” and yet they oppose us so-called “conservatives” at every turn with their environmental-whackoism which is in a real sense conservative to the point of regressiveness.
“Conservatives” who promote “drill, baby, drill” are the actual progressives whose prescriptions are aimed at making goods more plentiful and cheaper.
And socialists’ nostrums which prevent economic progress are not limited to environmentalism, either. Scratch a Democrat and a proponent of wage and price controls will yell. But what is price control but reaction??? Free-market prices reflect the net effect on society and on individual people of changes - which may on net be positive changes - in conditions.

Yes, [the 1916 billionaire’s] 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.

True - but then, it would still take that billionaire several days to make a transcontinental trip, and a week to travel across an ocean.
Whereas the 2017 traveler of ordinary means can travel between any two cities in the world - granted, uncomfortably in coach - inside of two days.