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.

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.

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.

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.

"A number of them" is an interesting way to say two.

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.

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.

> 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?

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.

When has concentrated and entrenched wealth ever been a benign end?

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

it took a while to reach the bottom.

The movie did feel a year long.

do you have any reading material on this? curious idea

> 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?