OceanGate Titan submersible vehicle and crew presumed lost near Titanic wreckage

[1995hoo]

Accumulated wealth alone for me isn't enough circumstantial proof.

I'm with Scott and others - it is virtually impossible to amass one billion American dollars and not be a good person.

One million dollars is a sum of money that would last any of us for 15-20 years, assuming conservative investments.

One billion dollars is 1,000 times that amount.

In conclusion,

I once saw an excellent explanation of how to think of the value of huge amounts of money; the explanation was made in the context of multi-trillion-dollar federal budgets. Most of us have trouble imagining the actual value of that amount of money in a lump sum because it exceeds any life experience many of us have. But pretty much all of us, except maybe some of our youngest forum members, can relate to a thousand dollars.

So the example I saw said to assume you are going to be given exactly $1 million and you must spend it in increments of exactly $1000 per day (assume taxes and the like are not an issue and just go with the round figure). Assuming no leap years, it would take you two years and 270 days to spend the million dollars. 270 days is about 0.74 of a year. Round that off to 0.75 for convenience: It would take you 2.75 years to spend the money.

If, instead, you were given exactly $1 billion subject to the same $1000-a-day requirement, it would take you roughly 2,750 years to spend the billion (slight rounding-induced error, plus I'm not accounting for leap years because it's too much trouble).

What if you were given exactly $1 trillion subject to the same $1000-a-day requirement? A trillion is a thousand times a billion. It would take you roughly 2,750,000 years to spend it all.

[SectorZ]

People who are happy that people died based on their wealth may want to re-examine what type of people they are, especially when the ones here doing it are the loudest screamers that certain people's rights should be granted more importance for specious (at best) reasons.

[Rothman]

No billionaire can make their money ethically.

Depends on the definition of ethics.

Do have to say the whole implication that the billionaires deserved to die doesn't seem very ethical in of itself, if we're going to get on our moral high horses...

The billionaire who caused the death of himself and four others said "safety is just pure waste".

Therefore...

Therefore fuck him. I don't know about the other passengers, but Stockton Rush had it coming.

The other passengers are a sacrifice you're willing to make.  How ethical.

[Rothman]

All you folks who are into research can't be bothered to find a couple of snippets of unethical activity when your stance is challenged?  I never said that I doubted you could find what you're claiming.  If we're going to gloat over the deaths of three wealthy people, why not make build a case for it?

It's not that I can't be bothered, it's that when one works for oneself, the opportunity cost of stopping to indulge in a deep dive is too great. Any hour I spend researching something to win an Internet argument I don't actually care about winning is an hour not spent putting money in my pocket.

"I just wish death on people based upon stereotypes rather than learning about the individuals since it's easier to justify."

[kphoger]

1.  People aren't assholes just because they're rich.  Hating on the 1% is one of the most popular things to do these days, but it's shameful.  Not everyone is an Andrew Carnegie;  some are a Colonel Sanders.

2.  $250,000 could by a nice house, or think of all the good that could be done with it by a charity organization?  The same could be said of anyone's luxury purchases.  Anybody buying a new Tesla Model 3 could be accused of wasteful spending, because they could have bought a used Camry instead and donated the rest to charity.  Have you looked into how much each of the evil billionaires donates to charity every year?  I'm betting that you actually have no idea if they are generous towards charitable causes or not, instead simply assuming that they spend all their money on themselves.

3.  Even if they were all selfish, unethical, sleazy assholes–I still shouldn't wish them death.  To some degree we're all selfish, unethical, sleazy assholes after all.

[Takumi]

This entire saga reminds me a bit of the ship that got stuck in the Suez Canal last year, only more tragic. It was seemingly all the internet was talking about for a few days, then almost completely forgotten shortly after the, uh, resolution.

[abefroman329]

1.  People aren't assholes just because they're rich.  Hating on the 1% is one of the most popular things to do these days, but it's shameful.  Not everyone is an Andrew Carnegie;  some are a Colonel Sanders.

Hey, I just re-read Luke 18:25 just now, and guess what?  #NotAllRichMen isn't in there!

[abefroman329]

the ones here doing it are the loudest screamers that certain people's rights should be granted more importance for specious (at best) reasons.

Oh, please elaborate.

[kphoger]

1.  People aren't assholes just because they're rich.  Hating on the 1% is one of the most popular things to do these days, but it's shameful.  Not everyone is an Andrew Carnegie;  some are a Colonel Sanders.

Hey, I just re-read Luke 18:25 just now, and guess what?  #NotAllRichMen isn't in there!

Hey, I just checked, and #metaphor and #hyperbole were both common literary devices back when the Gospel of Luke was written.

Wealthy Christians mentioned in the New Testament (there are others too):
Acts 4:36-37
Acts 10:1-2
Acts 16:14-15


ETA – see Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57-60).

[abefroman329]

1.  People aren't assholes just because they're rich.  Hating on the 1% is one of the most popular things to do these days, but it's shameful.  Not everyone is an Andrew Carnegie;  some are a Colonel Sanders.

Hey, I just re-read Luke 18:25 just now, and guess what?  #NotAllRichMen isn't in there!

Hey, I just checked, and #metaphor and #hyperbole were both common literary devices back when the Gospel of Luke was written.

Wealthy Christians mentioned in the New Testament (there are others too):
Acts 4:36-37
Acts 10:1-2
Acts 16:14-15


ETA – see Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57-60).

Ah yes, those are the parts of the Bible that are not to be taken literally. 

As opposed to all of the parts that even vaguely mention homosexuality.

[Rothman]

1.  People aren't assholes just because they're rich.  Hating on the 1% is one of the most popular things to do these days, but it's shameful.  Not everyone is an Andrew Carnegie;  some are a Colonel Sanders.

3.  Even if they were all selfish, unethical, sleazy assholes–I still shouldn't wish them death.  To some degree we're all selfish, unethical, sleazy assholes after all.

Wait, Colonel Sanders was a good guy?

I'm with you on #3, but hating on the 1%, who use their economic and political influence to keep the rest of us down, is quite justified.

[kphoger]

Wait, Colonel Sanders was a good guy?

By all accounts I've read by people who knew him personally, yes, he was a good guy.  I believe that, toward the end of his life, he even made it his goal to give away all of his wealth and die penniless–but, by that point, he was earning so much he literally couldn't give it away fast enough.

I'm with you on #3, but hating on the 1%, who use their economic and political influence to keep the rest of us down, is quite justified.

Again, you just assumed that the 1% are using their influence to keep the rest of us down, without considering the possibility that some of them are actually using their influence for good and to bring the rest of us up.

[kphoger]

Ah yes, those are the parts of the Bible that are not to be taken literally.

Well played.

[Max Rockatansky]

Colonel Sanders is one of the stranger pop culture icons I've found.  The story that always found bizarre is with Colonel Sanders is the gas station branding shootout where his district manager was killed.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/posts/kfc-colonel-sanders-shoot-out

[Rothman]

I'm with you on #3, but hating on the 1%, who use their economic and political influence to keep the rest of us down, is quite justified.

Again, you just assumed that the 1% are using their influence to keep the rest of us down, without considering the possibility that some of them are actually using their influence for good and to bring the rest of us up.

Not really, because Capitalism.  Although I think ethical appeals are subjective, the fact of the matter is becoming wealthy in our society involves using influence as I described.

Show me a billionaire philanthropist and I'll show you someone that still minimized pay and benefits to labor to achieve profits.

[Ted$8roadFan]

Very sad news.

[kphoger]

Show me a billionaire philanthropist and I'll show you someone that still minimized pay and benefits to labor to achieve profits.

Sorry if I don't keep up with who all the billionaire philanthropists are, to know how to answer that challenge.  But, I don't know, Dan Price?  (not saying he's a good guy)

[J N Winkler]

There is a proverb to the effect that "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."  This said, I think hunting for evidence of specific moral culpability in the biographies of individual billionaires takes the focus off the real problem, which is systemic:  we live in a system that redistributes wealth upward, to the extent that the global population of billionaires has doubled in the last 12 years while real per-capita income in the middle and lower deciles has stagnated.

For all of the talk about "late stage capitalism" (designed to hint that capitalism itself is about to implode), the real cause is that we have abandoned the redistributive mechanisms (such as sharply progressive taxation) that, in the middle decades of the 20th century, allowed us to maintain a capitalistic system where it was still possible for people to become rich through innovation but incomes and the standard of living increased across nearly all per-capita income deciles.

[skluth]

Rather than speculate, here's an article about the passengers. TL:DR summary:

Hamish Harding - chairman of Action Aviation, an explorer by nature who broke the Guinness world record for the fastest flight around both the Earth's poles in 2019. Not enough to judge.

Shahzada Dawood - vice chairman of Engro, a Pakistani energy investment company, and the Dawood Hercules Corp., an investment and holdings firm. Has served on various boards, including the SETI Institute, a NASA-funded nonprofit dedicated to extraterrestrial research, and Prince Charles' charity, Prince's Trust International. Doesn't seem to be an asshole. It was his son who also died.

Paul-Henri Nargeolet - retired French Navy commander and led the first recovery dive to the Titanic wreckage in 1987. He also completed 37 dives in a submersible to the Titanic shipwreck over the course of his career. Seems fairly upright.

Stockton Rush - doesn't tell much but from everything else I've read he seems like an arrogant d-bag.

[triplemultiplex]

At least we know their estates can easily afford the search and recovery bill.

I'll show these cash-chuckers in death the same respect they show us wage slaves in life.

[Max Rockatansky]

At least we know their estates can easily afford the search and recovery bill.

I'll show these cash-chuckers in death the same respect they show us wage slaves in life.

I've never been directly or indirectly disrespected by any of the three billionaires involved, have you?

[kphoger]

Honestly, I've been directly disrespected by a LOT more poor people than rich people.

In fact, if I had to guess who the richest people I know are, it would probably be the couple who are currently in the process of trying to sell their 31.11-acre property here in Wichita, which is currently listed at $1,749,000.  They're some of the most down-to-earth, nicest people I know, and my own children have gone over to their place for pool parties more than once.  Never one ounce of disrespect shown, that I can recall.

In the past, I'd have said it was the owners of Silver Dollar City, whose family has a net worth of around $1 billion, last I checked.  We haven't really kept up with them, though, so I'm not even sure they'd recognize me anymore.  But I've been to their house for their daughter's birthday party, and she was the flower girl in our wedding.  Again, never one ounce of disrespect shown to me.

[Takumi]

Colonel Sanders is one of the stranger pop culture icons I've found.  The story that always found bizarre is with Colonel Sanders is the gas station branding shootout where his district manager was killed.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/posts/kfc-colonel-sanders-shoot-out

A few years after his death, he was the subject of a Japanese baseball curse. (Fun fact: Randy Bass, for whom the Colonel statue was the avatar, later became a senator.)

[Scott5114]

It sucks that he didn't learn at a younger age that doing what your dad says isn't always a great idea. (But then if I had fully internalized this lesson at age 19, it would have saved me a lot of grief, so who am I to talk?)

It's not that simple. In a lot of cultures, especially Asian ones, you just do not say no to your parents when they want you to do something.

They should do it anyway. I've learned from experience that doing what my dad wants nearly always has negative consequences for me. I can't imagine that stops being a possibility just because of cultural expectations (rather, I would imagine some parents abuse that expectation).

[Max Rockatansky]

It sucks that he didn't learn at a younger age that doing what your dad says isn't always a great idea. (But then if I had fully internalized this lesson at age 19, it would have saved me a lot of grief, so who am I to talk?)

It's not that simple. In a lot of cultures, especially Asian ones, you just do not say no to your parents when they want you to do something.

They should do it anyway. I've learned from experience that doing what my dad wants nearly always has negative consequences for me. I can't imagine that stops being a possibility just because of cultural expectations (rather, I would imagine some parents abuse that expectation).

My dad and brother talked me into all sorts of risky activities when I was about 19.  None of them included a Logitech controlled submarine but I did end up with a broken ankle after I barrel rolled an ATV down a hill in the Sonoran Desert.  If my dad had asked me to join him on a Titanic submarine voyage at that age I probably would have gone, even if begrudgingly.