[dragonwriter]

> An average person today with e.g. a car, a shower and a smartphone with internet access is already richer than any of the kings of the past.

George VI was a “king of the past”; I don't think there is any reasonable general sense in which the average person today is richer than George VI. If you go to the distant enough past, this becomes arguably (and, farther, clearly) true, but also not at all meaningful.

> So no, wealth isn't "hoarded by a small percent of the population

Yes, it is; the narrow distribution of wealth is uncontrovertible.

> we really are, the vast majority of us, richer than ever in history of man.

That doesn't contradict that wealth is narrowly hoarded (that is, both narrowly distributed and that narrow distribution being the active choice of those who are in the narrow group receiving the most), and to the extent that it is true, it doesn't matter because, in fact, wealth is narrowly hoarded and it turns out that, once you get out of the most abject poverty, relative wealth matters more to experienced utility than absolute wealth.

[LessDmesg]

George VI didn't have access to millions of books at the palm of his hand, George VI couldn't get a Chevy or a flight to Tokyo, he couldn't get decent anesthesia or a quality tooth implant, and George VI couldn't play a video game for all his wealth. So no, George VI could only dream of the riches you command in your day.

No, narrow distribution of wealth IS controversible. All of the "super-rich" are mostly rich in terms of investment and assets, not actual money (i.e. wages). Jeff Bezos can't get all the hundreds of billions $$ that are attributed to him, they're not on his bank account: instead, they're paying wages to all the employees of his successful company as well as driving down costs for Amazon's customers.

And that's where you're most wrong: wealth does get shared, especially in the realms of technology. Computers, smartphones, the internet, combustion engines, electric cars, airplanes, hydroelectric and nuclear and solar energy etc. are all now accessible to the widest swathes of humanity. The rich might hold most of the worlds superyachts, but smaller yachts are much more widespread, and the vast majority of humanity can get a ship or a plane ride. What was once not affordable to a single person on Earth is now affordable by over 50% of adult population. There's no reason to believe fusion energy will be any less so.

[morelisp]

> George VI didn't have access to millions of books at the palm of his hand

He had access to any book he wanted within short order (less than day for anything in the UK, probably less than two for anywhere in Europe - and multiple massive libraries who would not refuse him access to any item in their collection). If your goal is "better books" rather than simply "more books" this seems preferable to my case where I can get any book one of a half-dozen retailers want me to have instantly.

> George VI couldn't get a Chevy

Uh, why not?

> or a flight to Tokyo

He famously died after postponing a flight to Australia, I'm pretty sure he could've made it to Tokyo if he wanted.

> he couldn't get decent anesthesia or a quality tooth implant

Neither of these is readily within the means of much of the US population, so weird example - but osseointegrative implants were available since the early 20th century. Anesthesia also becomes recognizably modern shortly after WW1.

Between this and the Chevy, I question if you have any idea when George VI lived.

> couldn't play a video game

This is absurd.