But it's important it converges pretty nicely. That arbitrage slowly lifts the standard of living in all places until past colonializism and slavery no longer matter is fundamental to modern liberalism, hence https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-condit...

> No, you are reading that in.

We'll we can agree to disagree here, but let me first clarify what you do think. If the meritocracy doesn't chip away all most inter-generational wealth disparity over 500 years is that OK? Do you think e.g. John Stuart Mill or Bertrand Russel would agree with you?

> > Again, it might better align liberalism with the reality of what it actually accomplishes, but that is is *too tepid( and will not save it.

> This is a restatement of the justification for authoritarianism.

I am not stating that liberalism isn't good enough. I am not even stating that liberalism isn't ambitious enough "objectively". I am saying that sort of liberalism isn't ambitious enough to maintain popular support. Right or wrong, it will die as the increasingly restless, and sure, illiberal, masses, seek other things.

Neoliberalism, was surprisingly successful saying we cannot have certain nice things and narrowing the overtone window (again, I say that independently of whether neoliberalism's claims are true), but it is unsustainable.