Really if we're getting down to this we're talking space time continuum stuff I think and all you have to do is go around taking bets on what's going to happen.
Super easy with weather related issues.
Would you succeed in 1900?
- Thread starter SpokaneCY
- Start date
Really if we're getting down to this we're talking space time continuum stuff I think and all you have to do is go around taking bets on what's going to happen.
Super easy with weather related issues.
We could look up the guys that were to be responsible for the market crash of '29 and make sure they never saw the light of Wall Street.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,162
- 29,440
- 113
My skills administering O365 really would have helped me out, I think.
Now, a thinking man would have gone to Chicago and bought up the HH Holmes murder hotel on the cheap, and gotten in on the ground floor of the true crime craze.
Now, a thinking man would have gone to Chicago and bought up the HH Holmes murder hotel on the cheap, and gotten in on the ground floor of the true crime craze.
I don't know if I'd be successful, but I think I'd at least survive and make a decent living. I think you might be able to help out the smarter people in the world push ideas faster with limited knowledge of what is possible. That's half the battle, give them the idea knowing it can be done and let them run with it.
I feel like you'd be like Owen Wilson in Idiocracy, except with smart people.
I feel like you'd be like Owen Wilson in Idiocracy, except with smart people.
It'd be a bit like trying to warn people about climate change today, imo. Unlikely to take it seriously enough to warrant change when what they are doing is making $$$.
Circus freak. Or maybe just enlist. What's the worst that could happen at the turn of the century? Maybe I get deployed to central America and die of malaria but if that doesn't happen I ought to be OK as long as I'm out before the US gets involved in WW1.
I think you could thrive pretty easily by being a con artist. We all know all the techniques used throughout the decades that would be unknown to them. Plus you can always skip town pretty easily.
one side of the family was pretty well-off through the first portion of the 20th century so I think it'd be ok though I might be a bit early. I know enough about animal husbandry that I could do fine on a farm as long as they hire a woman......or I marry into them.
Could great stock advice if again, they'd listen to a woman.
Can't can worth **** and no freezer to save me and would die in childbirth so I probably wouldn't last long in that respect.
Could great stock advice if again, they'd listen to a woman.
Can't can worth **** and no freezer to save me and would die in childbirth so I probably wouldn't last long in that respect.
I work in the refrigeration/HVAC industry. Refrigeration is an old technology, relatively speaking. The basic design hasn't changed in over 100 years.
I think I could make a living somewhere working with ammonia refrigerants.
I think I could make a living somewhere working with ammonia refrigerants.
I hope in that first paragraph you don’t mean marry into your own family...........don’t think you are from Kentucky.
Yeah you'd kind of have to be an idiot to not be successful in 1900 with knowledge of the future.
Sorry. Tacos weren't around in the US until 1905 and they started by being introduced in LA. Unless you mean the kind you'd find in a prostitution house which is probably what you were getting at but I'm pretty slow on the uptick.
if I had the same wealth and knowledge, yes, I would become a millionaire based on land speculation and stock market investments. in 1900 NYC still had dumbbell tenements (their modern tenement law was passed in 1901) so there is a huge head start of knowledge. you could totally redesign or control the entire NYC housing market based on this one piece of law.
besides that, my profession didn't exist in 1900 nor was there any legal foundation to its approval yet, so from a work perspective, not at all.
besides that, my profession didn't exist in 1900 nor was there any legal foundation to its approval yet, so from a work perspective, not at all.
The 70s had decent size seats. Just one problem.... smoking sections
For the average middle-class person before the industry was deregulated, flying was something you only did a few times throughout your life. So it was "special" and worth dressing up in your Sunday best when it was very infrequent.
Back in the CAB days, airlines had regulated monopolies and ticket prices on their routes. Flying was expensive. So instead of giving you the bare-bones experience and competing on price like they do now, they competed on amenities and spaciousness because they had the guaranteed revenues to do it (while stuffing us into crowded cabins along the way). A couple airlines tried to offer more service for more money, but consumers clearly indicated they wanted lower prices, so we all get the cattle treatment.
Up to you if you think the "good old days" was when flying was comfortable yet the domain of the affluent and well-heeled business travelers compared to today when it is affordable to everybody. We could just go back to 10-hour (+) family road trips whenever you wanted to go somewhere or simply not traveling at all, like we used to do.
I do not think the profit motive is really what is behind climate change.
I think what is behind it is consumer demand -- people like cheap and reliable access to transportation (e.g., cars and airliners), heat, electricity, and cheap, high-quality consumer goods made overseas and then shipped over here. It is our want of those types of energy service and goods/services that require it that makes it all happen.
Nobody ever pointed a gun at me and made me fill up my gas tank, and burning a 20-gallon tank adds another 400 pounds of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The fact is we are all just as much (if not more) culpable as consumers for buying it.
Even if the economy was made up entirety of nonprofits, co-ops, or the public sector, with no profits to be seen, it would still have to deal with consumer demand being what it is and that demand being aimed straight at stuff that creates the emissions.
