No Keith.

The amazing success of the Industrial Revolution in Britain was made possible by the harshest, cruelest exploitation of the lower class imaginable. Yet, this man barely acknowledges their contribution when forming his theory of affluence and claims further that once the surplus population of common laborers was reduced, society was much improved because:

"Thrift, prudence, negotiation and hard work were becoming values for communities that previously had been spendthrift, impulsive, violent and leisure loving," Dr. Clark writes.

Clark frames this as "downward mobility," and claims the lower class was ultimately replaced by better stock with the sterling qualities listed above. No sir.

While it's possible that as the upper classes propelled enough peasants to their deaths, there was some "downward mobility," I would suggest that this wouldn't be voluntary but rather the result of a downward push from above. Who would willingly downgrade from a middle class profession (lawyer, doctor, teacher, clergy, clerk, accountant, banker, businessman, public administrator) to common laborer or one of the many occupations in which they would actually have to work hard? Hell, no. And does he do the Brits justice? Hell, no.

It is far more likely that thrift, prudence, negotiation and work ethic were instilled into the working class by the MIDDLE and upper classes in the interests of benefitting themselves. They literally molded the working class. Did that hurt?

Nah. It didn't hurt one bit. The rest of you are crybabies. Live with it.