6 ms·

Entrenched money stabilizes the world. Imagine putting 10% of the billionaires of the world on a boat, those who pull the strings of their empires to keep their

Entrenched money stabilizes the world. Imagine putting 10% of the billionaires of the world on a boat, those who pull the strings of their empires to keep their nations into status-quo, and imagine the boat sinks. A year later, all those entrenched interests dematerialize, fewer powers hold people together, diplomacy isn’t as balanced as it has been when billionaires weighed in, and war starts. That’s the story of the Titanic, sunk in 1913.

gloriana 6y ago
do you have any reading material on this? curious idea
adriancr 6y ago
> Entrenched money stabilizes the world. It stabilizes the world into a corrupt distopia where those people rule only to entrench themselves and their friends (incompetent and malign as they are) What you are describing is the old feudalism approach where aristocracy controlled everything. How well did that turn out for the serfs?, then how did it work out historically for everyone?, how many are still around?
- Spivak 6y ago
  But entrenching themselves is a benign end. I don’t really care that very very wealthy people exist and seek to carve out exceptions for themselves to maintain that wealth. The harm that’s done is vague and more the realm of economics. But very very wealthy people who want to “change the world” are individuals with the monetary weight of tens of thousands of people and can do things that for others would require and naturally be tempered by cooperation.
  - ameister14 6y ago
    When has concentrated and entrenched wealth ever been a benign end?
dTal 6y ago
The Titanic sank in 1912. That's a pretty glaring error when you're making such a sweeping assertion as this.
- bagpuss 6y ago
  it took a while to reach the bottom.
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  The movie did feel a year long.
ameister14 6y ago
I mean, that's a gross oversimplification and while a neat story, it's really the same as saying rising CEO wages resulted in a lowering of measles cases across the US because they started going up as measles went down. You clearly haven't studied WWI or its causes or you'd realize that the entrenched interests were responsible for the spread of the war in the first place. It's the opposite of what you're saying happened.
enkid 6y ago
First, the Titanic sunk in 1912. Second, these are two events that happened around the same time. That does not mean they are at all related. Titanic primarily carried American and British passengers. The start of World War I primarily involved Austria, Serbia, Germany, and Russia. It's hard to see how British or American Millionaires would have influenced those events to stop the war.
- busterarm 6y ago
  Banking, at the level of being the financier of nations, was a global industry then as it is now. Many of those people at the time were British or American and a number of them died on that boat.
  - ameister14 6y ago
    "A number of them" is an interesting way to say two.
    - busterarm 6y ago
      To be fair, the alternative presented by the comment I responded to was zero. Also we're talking 2 out of maybe 6-10 people (and their families/heirs traveling with them)? Not like 2 out of thousands.
      - ameister14 6y ago
        No, we're talking about 2 out of hundreds. George H. Burr & Co, the Morgans, Henry Goldman, Samuel Sachs and their families, the list goes on and that's just NY - the banking families were numerous.
  - enkid 6y ago
    How does having extra bankers stop someone from assassinating an archduke, Austria from sending an ultimatum, or Russia from supporting Serbia? I don't see it.
bigbillheck 6y ago
> Imagine putting 10% of the billionaires of the world on a boat, those who pull the strings of their empires to keep their nations into status-quo, and imagine the boat sinks. How do we make this happen?

gloriana 6y ago

do you have any reading material on this? curious idea

adriancr 6y ago

> Entrenched money stabilizes the world. It stabilizes the world into a corrupt distopia where those people rule only to entrench themselves and their friends (incompetent and malign as they are) What you are describing is the old feudalism approach where aristocracy controlled everything. How well did that turn out for the serfs?, then how did it work out historically for everyone?, how many are still around?

Spivak 6y ago
But entrenching themselves is a benign end. I don’t really care that very very wealthy people exist and seek to carve out exceptions for themselves to maintain that wealth. The harm that’s done is vague and more the realm of economics. But very very wealthy people who want to “change the world” are individuals with the monetary weight of tens of thousands of people and can do things that for others would require and naturally be tempered by cooperation.
- ameister14 6y ago
  When has concentrated and entrenched wealth ever been a benign end?

dTal 6y ago

The Titanic sank in 1912. That's a pretty glaring error when you're making such a sweeping assertion as this.

bagpuss 6y ago
it took a while to reach the bottom.
SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
The movie did feel a year long.

ameister14 6y ago

I mean, that's a gross oversimplification and while a neat story, it's really the same as saying rising CEO wages resulted in a lowering of measles cases across the US because they started going up as measles went down. You clearly haven't studied WWI or its causes or you'd realize that the entrenched interests were responsible for the spread of the war in the first place. It's the opposite of what you're saying happened.

enkid 6y ago

First, the Titanic sunk in 1912. Second, these are two events that happened around the same time. That does not mean they are at all related. Titanic primarily carried American and British passengers. The start of World War I primarily involved Austria, Serbia, Germany, and Russia. It's hard to see how British or American Millionaires would have influenced those events to stop the war.

busterarm 6y ago
Banking, at the level of being the financier of nations, was a global industry then as it is now. Many of those people at the time were British or American and a number of them died on that boat.
- ameister14 6y ago
  "A number of them" is an interesting way to say two.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    To be fair, the alternative presented by the comment I responded to was zero. Also we're talking 2 out of maybe 6-10 people (and their families/heirs traveling with them)? Not like 2 out of thousands.
    - ameister14 6y ago
      No, we're talking about 2 out of hundreds. George H. Burr & Co, the Morgans, Henry Goldman, Samuel Sachs and their families, the list goes on and that's just NY - the banking families were numerous.
- enkid 6y ago
  How does having extra bankers stop someone from assassinating an archduke, Austria from sending an ultimatum, or Russia from supporting Serbia? I don't see it.

bigbillheck 6y ago

> Imagine putting 10% of the billionaires of the world on a boat, those who pull the strings of their empires to keep their nations into status-quo, and imagine the boat sinks. How do we make this happen?