Rome wasn't "equal". The British Empire wasn't "equal". America stills rules most of the world. It isn't "equal". If China someday rules the world, you better believe it won't involve an excess of "equality". The research talks about chronic stress and obesity. Guess what? That's just not a significant matter in the grand historical sense.
Can we please drop the Oprah-Winfrey view of the world? Please?
It's not the "grand historical sense" the article is talking about. And it's not what I care about in the country where I live. Give me Norway 2009 over The British Empire anytime.
Ruling the world is not equal to doing good or being good. Nor is goodness measured in dollars. The good countries are the ones with the largest percentage of happy content and healthy citizens, not the ones with the most power and biggest bank accounts.
Agreed. The fact that inequality can exist is part of what drives capitalism.
If you couldn't get rich and become unequal, a lot fewer people would be out there creating more value for others and driving the economy.
A more equal society = a lower growth economy. And having a strong economy matters because it gives your country power, control, and influence, which from the most basic point of view, enable its citizens to be protected and survive.
All of them did huge amounts of good along with whatever bad they did. The Romans (to take an uncontroversially ancient example) were brutal philistines, but can you say the pax romana was not a net win?
Can we please drop the Oprah-Winfrey view of the world? Please?