In what way has history proven otherwise?

Are the total profit's in the world exactly the same as they were five thousand years ago? Or any time frame?

It’s a relative statistic isn’t it. As the amount of money in the world goes up, the value of it goes down.

So is the world's total wealth more or less than it was a thousand years ago?

how are you measuring wealth relative to a thousand years ago.

If our GDP goes up (apparently) we as a country have more money, if inflation also goes up we can buy less with it, if our currency falls against our neighbours we can buy import less. Are we richer or poorer at this point?

I'll use standard of living. Which measure do you want to use? Are we (whether the world, a country, or an individual or comparative standing, or whichever you choose) richer or poorer than we were a thousand years ago?

I think it is an impossible comparison to make. Standards of living can be improved by things other than finance. The fact that kids aren’t being killed and maimed by polio every summer is a clear increase in the standard of living. It doesn’t mean we are financially any richer.

I think it is just simply impossible to compare ‘wealth’ in that way. Besides when I mentioned a zero sum game, It isn’t necessary to compare to past years, the sum is between all the parties in the transaction. I cannot make a profit without either buying something for less than its worth (a loss to the seller) selling something for more than its worth ( a loss to the buyer) or adding more value than the cost of adding that value (a loss either to myself or my employees).

That's not how I read your original post, in which you postulated the theory that all large business was inherently amoral due to the need to maximise profit. I don't agree with you, and offered up a small business for comparison, and am still waiting to hear from you if think a small business, following the same business plan of maximising their profits, was also amoral.

And as there have been Rules and Regulations governing commerce from the year dot, and accepted, sometimes grudgingly by most as a fact of life, (apart from the criminal element), I'm not sure that more of the same is really going to improve everyone's lot.

That's sophistry.

This country has the Red Cross handing out food parcels, Save the Children spending money here and foodbanks growing at a massive rate.

A thousand years ago, one might have walked outside and got a few sticks to lay a fire to keep warm and to cook. One might have gone hunting for food or picked fruits and nuts and mushrooms etc.

Try doing that these days – not least in the urban environments in which most people live (having been herded, in effect, into them after enclosure and deforestation, in order to work in industry for the benefit of a limited number of people).

I mentioned in one of the comments I copied over at the top of this thread that the likes of Richer Sounds and John Lewis can treat their workforce decently and still be hugely successful, profitable companies. It is, at base, a moral/ethical decision to decide to do otherwise, although (as has been discussed here before) being listed means that the City applies artificial pressures on businesses (constant growth at rates determined by the City to be acceptable) that put increased pressure on companies to 2stop treating employees as an investment and start seeing them simply as a cost to be cut.

If the wealth – no matter how great – is not shared around more equally than it ever was, and takes account of the cost of living, then it is meaningless to talk of whether the world is wealthier, as a whole, than it was a millennia ago.

So it's clearly not "zero sum" when we are wealthier in terms of not being killed by polio for one. If you don't measure wealth in terms of health, lifestyle, enjoyment, longevity, then what's the point of wealth?
Your sums assume that the values of the products and services are equal to all parties at all times.