An excerpt from the original Pilgrims in the Plymoth colony.

[Insight me]

everything i was saying was mostly centered around the fact that the Salem Witch Trials happened 50 to 70 years after the Original Puritians had arrived to America

in addition to the fact that King Kames had begun shipping criminals into America 5 years before the Puritans had even arrived

King James died just 5 years after the very first Puritans arrived to America - his son King Charles also continued to ship into America thousands of Criminals and mentally insane

I just don't see a direct factual connection that links the Original Puritans to the Salem Witch Trials nor to the racism that is associated to later Puritans in America.

my main evidence is the fact that in the record we find that later Puritans after 1630 were different from the earlier Puritans in that these Puritans were trying to work to support the Church of England here in America and they also left America and went to Canada because they had so much support for England during the Revolutionary War....


The Church OF England put around 1000 Catholics and Protestants to death - and this is the known deaths, in addition to the lives England destroyed and people they exiled from England to be killed in another country,

 

[Clete]

Gemini says that the US private wealth is about 34% of the world's wealth.
Do you think that Israel during its peak under Solomon had less of the world's wealth than that?

I asked Chat GPT o4-mini for the same information:
Depending on how “wealth” is defined (household-only versus total net wealth including businesses and government), the U.S. share of world net worth has peaked roughly in the 20 %–25 % range.

• Total U.S. net worth (all sectors) versus global net worth:
  • In 2020, global net worth was estimated at about $514 trillion, and credit-suisse data put U.S. total wealth at $126.3 trillion. Thus,
  $126.3 T$514 T≈24.6%. \frac{\$126.3\text{ T}}{\$514\text{ T}} \approx 24.6\%\quad.$514 T$126.3 T≈24.6%.
  Wikipedia
  • By the end of 2021, McKinsey put global net worth at $610 trillion. Contemporaneous reports (e.g., Barron’s) estimated U.S. net worth at about $136.8 trillion, yielding
  $136.8 T$610 T≈22.4%. \frac{\$136.8\text{ T}}{\$610\text{ T}} \approx 22.4\%\quad.$610 T$136.8 T≈22.4%.
  McKinsey & CompanyBarron's
  In other words, when you include households, non-financial firms, financial firms, and the government (net of U.S. liabilities), America’s share of global net worth peaked at just under one-quarter of the total.
• U.S. household wealth versus global household wealth:
  If you look only at household (plus nonprofit) net wealth, Credit Suisse/UBS figures show that in 2022 U.S. households held $140 trillion out of a world total of $454 trillion—about 30.8 % of global household wealth:
  $140 T$454 T≈30.8%. \frac{\$140\text{ T}}{\$454\text{ T}} \approx 30.8\%\quad.$454 T$140 T≈30.8%.
  Federal Reserve
  However, since that measure excludes business and government balance sheets, the broader “all-sectors” figure (around 22 %–25 %) is more representative of total American wealth relative to the world.

Bottom line: At its peak in recent years, U.S. citizens—and the institutions (businesses and government) under their control—have accounted for roughly one-quarter of all measurable global net wealth.

-----------------------

Now, I followed that up with the following question...

"This next question might be tough to answer because there's not going to be much hard data, but, what percentage of the world's wealth do you think it is likely that Solomon controlled when he was king of Israel?"

ChatGPT said:

Estimating Solomon’s share of “world wealth” requires a lot of inference, since we lack direct data on ancient asset holdings. Still, by combining Angus Maddison’s GDP‐and‐population reconstructions with what the biblical record tells us about Solomon’s revenues, we can sketch a rough range. Below is one plausible way to approach it:

1. World‐economy baseline circa 1000 BC (Maddison estimate)

• Maddison’s data for 1000 BC put global GDP at roughly $22.2 billion (in 1990 international dollars) and world population at about 50 million people Wikipedia.
• In other words, the entire planet was producing goods and services worth $22.2 billion each year; total “stock” of wealth (land, livestock, stored grain, metals, etc.) would have been some multiple of annual GDP—perhaps on the order of 3–5× GDP, though exact ratios for that era are uncertain.
  

2. Solomon’s kingdom: population and possible GDP share

• Biblical and archaeological estimates suggest united Israel under Solomon may have had roughly 300 000–500 000 inhabitants—let’s say 400 000 people (≈ 0.8 % of the world population at the time) Wikipedia.
• If every person on earth averaged $444 in annual output (that’s world GDP ÷ world population: $22.2 billion ÷ 50 million ≈ $444/person), then Israel’s total annual output might have been around $444 × 400 000 ≈ $177 million per year (in 1990 $/yr).
• That would put the entire kingdom’s GDP at roughly $177 million / $22 200 million ≈ 0.8 % of world GDP in 1000 BC.

3. Solomon’s personal/state revenues

• The biblical account (1 Kings 10:14) says Solomon received 666 talents of gold annually from tribute. A talent is about 34 kg, so 666 talents ≈ 22 700 kg of gold per year.
• Converting that weight of gold into 1990 $/kg is tricky, but if we tentatively value gold at $12 000 per kilogram (1990 $/kg, roughly $400 per troy ounce), the tribute alone would be about $272 million per year.
• That figure already exceeds the estimate of Israel’s entire annual GDP (~$177 million). In other words, the biblical report almost certainly inflates or uses a different weighting of gold relative to grain and labor than Maddison’s per‐capita baseline—so we cannot treat $272 million (1990 $) as literally comparable to the $177 million GDP number. Instead, it shows that a large share of regional wealth went through Solomon’s coffers.

4. Converting to “percentage of world wealth”

• If the entire kingdom accounted for ~0.8 % of world GDP, and Solomon as king controlled virtually all state resources (temple treasures, palaces, military assets, royal land grants, plus tithes from intra‐regional trade), then at peak his control over real capital (storehouses of grain, livestock herds, copper and iron, plus gold/silver) may have equaled or surpassed the kingdom’s annual GDP.
• Even so, since the global stock of all assets (land, livestock, precious metals, etc.) would be a multiple of $22.2 billion—let’s assume a mid‐range multiplier of 4×—the “global wealth stock” might be on the order of $88 billion (1990 $) in 1000 BC.
• If Solomon’s state‐level holdings amounted to, say, 2× the kingdom’s annual GDP (i.e., roughly $354 million in total assets, 1990 $), then his personal/state control would be $354 million$88 000 million≈0.40% of global wealth.\frac{\$354\text{ million}}{\$88\,000\text{ million}} \approx 0.40\%\text{ of global wealth.}$88000 million$354 million≈0.40% of global wealth.
• In round numbers, if you believe (a) Israel’s GDP was ~0.8 % of world GDP and (b) Solomon’s accumulated stock of assets ran roughly twice the kingdom’s annual GDP, then Solomon might have held on the order of 0.3 %–0.6 % of all global wealth at his peak.

5. Why this is still a very rough range

• Population estimates could shift Israel’s share to anywhere between 0.5 % and 1.0 % of world GDP—every 100 000 person change swings that by roughly 0.2 %.
• Wealth‐to‐GDP ratios in ancient economies are guesses. If the true global wealth stock was only 3× annual GDP, $22.2 billion × 3 = $66.6 billion, then $354 million of Solomon’s assets would be ~0.53 % instead of 0.40 %. If it was 5× GDP, $111 billion total, then the percentage drops toward ~0.32 %.
• Tribute‐versus‐GDP conflation: equating 666 talents of gold directly to “annual income” assumes ancient “value per kilogram of gold” matched our $/kg, which almost certainly overstates the silver‐and‐bronze economy that most Levantine farmers/fishermen used.
• State assets beyond tribute: temple treasures, royal land, stables, trade inventory, and workforce obligations (forced labor on building projects) aren’t captured by the gold‐tribute estimate alone. Some historians argue Solomon’s building projects impoverished commoners or extracted extraordinary levies, suggesting the “stock” of what he controlled could exceed 2× GDP. If so, the percentage might stretch up toward 0.7 % or even 1 %—still under one percent of global wealth.

6. A defensible “best‐guess” range

• Taking a middle‐of‐the‐road assumption—Israel ≈ 0.8 % of world GDP, Solomon’s asset‐stock ≈ 2× the kingdom’s annual GDP, global wealth ≈ 4× world GDP—we land near 0.4 % of global wealth.
• Allowing for plausible swings in population, asset multipliers, and tribute accounting, a reasonable estimate is that Solomon held roughly 0.3 % to 0.6 % of global wealth at his zenith.
• In round terms, then, Solomon’s share was almost certainly well under 1 percent—and most likely closer to one‐half of one percent (≈ 0.5 %) of everything everyone in the world owned.

---

Summary:
Although historical uncertainties are large, combining Maddison’s world‐GDP estimate of $22.2 billion (1990 $) in 1000 BC with raw extrapolations of Israel’s size and Solomon’s tribute suggests his control of total wealth was on the order of a few tenths of one percent—roughly 0.3 % to 0.6 %—of all global assets at the time



Now, I've learned not to take GPT's word for it when it gives you fairly simple answers to complex questions but that is hardly a simple answer. I wouldn't even know where to begin if I wanted to debunk any of that.

Let me ask you this.

Why do you believe that Solomon was not simply a Titan of global finance, but an unparalleled colossus of wealth? There's no question that he was super wealthy; much more so than any king of his time or any that had come before him, but that hardly implies he commanded double‐digit percentages of global assets. If he truly held such vast resources, image the pittance that any tribute a nation wanted to pay him would have seemed to be. How could he have not ended up being king of the whole world?

 

[Clete]

everything i was saying was mostly centered around the fact that the Salem Witch Trials happened 50 to 70 years after the Original Puritians had arrived to America

in addition to the fact that King Kames had begun shipping criminals into America 5 years before the Puritans had even arrived

King James died just 5 years after the very first Puritans arrived to America - his son King Charles also continued to ship into America thousands of Criminals and mentally insane

I just don't see a direct factual connection that links the Original Puritans to the Salem Witch Trials nor to the racism that is associated to later Puritans in America.

my main evidence is the fact that in the record we find that later Puritans after 1630 were different from the earlier Puritans in that these Puritans were trying to work to support the Church of England here in America and they also left America and went to Canada because they had so much support for England during the Revolutionary War....


The Church OF England put around 1000 Catholics and Protestants to death - and this is the known deaths, in addition to the lives England destroyed and people they exiled from England to be killed in another country,

I'm not going to spend my own time and effort debunking this stupidity. Since this moron doesn't want to interact with real people in two way discourse then I'll let a machine respond to him.

In response to the above post, Chat GPT said (emphasis added)....

The assertion that the Salem Witch Trials bear no connection to the original Puritans overlooks both chronological continuity and ideological inheritance. Those first settlers arrived in New England beginning in 1620 (Pilgrims at Plymouth) and more substantially in 1629 (Massachusetts Bay Colony). By 1692, when the Salem hysteria erupted, many of the original immigrants had died; yet their theological framework and social structures persisted through their children and grandchildren. Puritan society emphasized a covenantal understanding of community, a strict moral code, and a pervasive expectation of divine judgment—factors that primed later generations for the witchcraft panic. Claiming that original Puritans “had nothing to do” with Salem neglects how beliefs, legal traditions, and church governance passed intact to their descendants, who conducted the trials.

The suggestion that King James I’s policies or Charles I’s transportation of criminals undercut Puritan responsibility also misses the point. It is true that James I died in 1625 and that he authorized shipping convicts to colonies like Virginia beginning around 1618; Charles I continued that practice after 1625. Those measures mainly affected settlement patterns in Virginia and the Caribbean, not the Puritan experiments in Massachusetts. When the Pilgrims landed in 1620, they chose to govern themselves according to their own interpretation of Scripture—specifically rejecting the Anglican hierarchy. By the 1630s, the Massachusetts Bay Puritans were not “supporting the Church of England”; they were fleeing precisely because they could not reform it from within. Their exodus was driven by conscience, not by royal directive or loyalty to Anglicanism. Later claims of Puritan “loyalists” migrating to Canada at the time of the American Revolution refer to a small minority of New Englanders who remained faithful to the crown in the eighteenth century; they were not representative of seventeenth-century Puritanism, nor were they directly descended from those earliest founders.

Attributing racist policies or the Salem prosecutions to “original” Puritans also conflates separate eras and overlooks internal dissent. While some later New Englanders practiced slavery and fought Native Americans, the first wave of Puritan immigrants arrived with the aim of establishing a biblically ordered commonwealth; they did not arrive as slave traders or as architects of systemic racism. The Salem Witch Trials were prosecuted by magistrates and ministers educated in Puritan theology, yet those men were third- or fourth-generation descendants of the 1620–1630 migrants. Their actions cannot be divorced from the worldview inherited from their forebears. In short, it is historically inaccurate to posit that original Puritans had no hand—directly or indirectly—in laying the groundwork for events like Salem or for social attitudes that later manifested in racial injustice. Instead, one must recognize how ideas, once transplanted, evolved over decades and shaped communal behavior long after the first landing at Plymouth.