Yes, of course, I don't know why you didn't show me the images of the fentanyl zombies while you were at it. These people live in much worse conditions.
Misery grows for Venezuelans hit by power cutsCubans protest against food shortages and rising pricesI won't even mention North Korea, because there they can kill you outright if you don't applaud the leader enough.
But the difference is that in those countries you like so much, where there are no billionaires, more than 90% of the population are the ones who appear in the photo. You prefer widespread poverty to societies where there are many rich people, which is where the poor live better.
Being against plutocratic policies doesn’t mean I want people living in similar conditions as Venezuela or North Korea, this is an insane leap.
So yes, if you exclude the most extreme cases, the poor in the richest countries live better than kings did three centuries ago, with the only difference being that they do not have people at their service.
The OP is about the United States, not other rich countries who may have different policies. 36 million people in the U.S. live below the poverty line, an amount greater than the population of many countries. Without even using the most extreme examples, it still isn’t true that poor Americans live better than kings. A bit higher on the income scale, there are still tens of millions of people who are lower middle class that rely on government subsidized food and housing assistance.
With the specific qualifier of
three centuries ago, it’s still an absurd comparison. Scientific and medical advances have moved humanity forward over the past 300 years. That is entirely unrelated to Trump. Even so, billionaires being able to amass more wealth won’t mean those towards the lower end of society won’t be negatively impacted by Trump’s policies, just because they have cleaner water and better sanitation than Louis XiV.