How do you normalize this? That article basically says that because Rockefeller didn’t have the internet, and we do, we are all intrinsically richer than him. Oh…. kay. That’s just technological progress, and you could say the same thing of any relative comparison of two points in time. What you really have to ask is: What did Rockefeller have then, that the general public didn’t have? And through some inflationary formula, what would the equivalency of said thing be today? And given thus determined relatively equivalent thing, do we, the common folk, have it today? For example, let’s say Rockefeller had running water, but the general public did not. We can’t jump to the conclusion that simply because we all have running water today, we’re richer than him. We would need to account for some inflationary metric. Let’s say we did, and we determine that the equivalent today becomes having access to the internet. In that case, sure, we’re all richer. But let’s say that instead, that the equivalent is owning a private jet — in that case, Rockefeller obviously wins.