Could Warren Buffet Take Over the World?

[ZEE]

.

[giblets]

His net worth is something like $50 billion. The US military alone spends 16 times that in a year, so he's definitely not going to take over the world by force.

[Boris Godunov]

Buffett's estimated net worth ~$47 billion, which is less than the GDP of most countries. It's a pittance compared to the wealth of the First World powers. So no.

Besides, George Soros already did it.

[ZEE]

.

[KrazyHorse]

I also admit my knowledge of stock markets and finance is limited.

[KrazyHorse]

Warren could move individual markets temporarily. I have no idea what it would mean to "control" the world via his wealth. He could not even realistically purchase a significant fraction of the world's fixed capital goods (the primitive concept of the means of production), even granting significant amounts of leverage (which would have to be granted to him by willing creditors).

As much as people make of the power of corporations, individual actors are relatively small-time. Only politicians, governments and the power of the State they wield can actually exert a meaningful level of control over the lives of a majority of people.

[kittenOFchaos]

All these private individuals could easily by kidnapped by the CIA and buried in a Nevada desert.

When George Soros messed with Britain, if I was head of MI5, I'd have sanctioned a similar operation.

[Aeson]

In SMAC you needed 50k space bucks or whatever for economic victory... so he just has to find a reasonable exchange rate.

[Aeson]

... and he needs to off that Mexican dude.

[ZEE]

.

[kittenOFchaos]

good replies


also I did not think of this, what a target a single world leader would make!

That reason alone might mean humans need to completely change the structure of power from finance and voting to a moar dynamic one in a globalist-run society.

Just keep the identity of the World Leader secret - as with the ruler of the Galaxy in 'The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy'. A man who lives with his cat on some remote World that is visited only when vital decisions needs to be made.

[ZEE]

.

[Boris Godunov]

The only other idea i can come up with is old-school Roman Republicanism but with no "Head of State" or "Emperor" to speak of. Straight up, majority-rules representation.

That's not how the Roman Republic worked. Laws were passed by assemblies of all citizens (comitia) which did indeed involve direct democracy. The Senate wasn't a representative body, as its members were appointed by magistrates, and didn't actually pass laws. Small assemblies (conventia) could pass laws that only effected their particular type of members (i.e., the Plebians could make laws only effecting the Plebs).

[onodera]

He should run for potus instead of Trump.

[BeBMan]

Cold buffet