MLLG

Titanic Myths

Setting the record straight

Titanic Myths

GEORGE NOGA – APR 16, 2023

Although Titanic sank 111 years ago yesterday, many Promethean myths (Prometheus was a Titan) reverberate even today. Most accounts (especially the DiCaprio film) are ignorant, dishonest and politically motivated. This post sets the record straight.

Myth: Capitalism (Greed) Caused the Loss of Life

The PC narrative is White Star Lines (WSL) did not have enough lifeboats due to greed (cost) or aesthetics. The real blame lies with inept government regulation by the British Board of Trade (BOT). The designer, builder and WSL all deferred to the BOT about the number of lifeboats, as it was the unchallenged authority. However, BOT regulations were 20 years old and enacted when 10,000 tons and 20 lifeboats was the norm; Titanic was 46,238 tons. Bureaucrats were rewarded for issuing new regulations, not updating old ones. No one challenged the BOT. Once government becomes involved, common sense and personal responsibility disappear.

Myth: First Class Passengers Got Preferential Treatment

Dissecting the data, 74% of women and 20% of men survived. However, 44% of first class passengers were women versus 23% third class. When adjusting for gender, the survival rates between first and third class were about the same. A third class female was 41% more likely to survive than a first class male. Third class passengers were more reluctant to leave the ship and part with baggage; also, their location aboard ship made survival more problematic. When third class passengers reached the boat deck, they were accorded the same treatment as all others. Survival was not about class; it was about women and children – nearly all of whom were saved.

Myth: Male aggression Hurt Survival of Women and Children

The number of men who survived is cited as evidence of male aggression. There was lifeboat capacity for all women and children and 550 men. There were many more men than women on board. If one man were loaded onto a lifeboat for each woman and child, all women and children would have been saved. Moreover, lifeboats would have been loaded quicker and with less fear, keeping families together and saving more lives. Male behavior, far from being aggressive, resulted in more than 200 fewer men surviving than should have been the case.

Myth: The Media – Then and Now – Fairly Report the Facts

Most contemporaneous media accounts were tainted by laziness, i.e. the failure to properly understand the data. Present day media stories hew to a politically correct narrative of blaming capitalism, greed, class warfare and male aggression for the calamity. The movie Titanic falsely depicted third class passengers forcibly barricaded to keep them from reaching lifeboats. Nor was anyone shot. The crew and passengers were stereotyped in the worst possible way, despite acting heroically and fearlessly in the fact of near-certain death. Note: Fox (which made the movie) has since apologized to families of those falsely portrayed in the movie.

Enduring Lessons of Titanic

First and Foremost, the Titanic disaster was a failure of government, not of capitalism. The media are feckless and lazy; it is far easier and more dramatic to blame the ship’s designer, builder and owner rather than an amorphous, faceless gaggle of bureaucrats. Nearly without exception, the media falsely portrays a politically correct narrative that blames capitalism, class warfare and toxic masculinity.

Source Note: Data for survival rates were taken from the formal investigation conducted by the British government as reported on several websites.

© 2023 George Noga
More Liberty – Less Government, Post Office Box 916381
Longwood, FL 32791-6381, Email: mllg@cfl.rr.com

MLLG

Was the Bethlehem Innkeeper Greedy? The Grinch Who Stole the First Christmas

Higher prices result in more people getting more rooms than if prices were static.

Was the Bethlehem Innkeeper Greedy?

The Grinch Who Stole the First Christmas

By: George Noga – December 4, 2022

This year’s Christmas posting is about the innkeeper in whose manger Jesus was born. Last year (posting dated 12/5/21) was about Ebeneezer Scrooge; in 2020 (12/13/20) it was about Christmas Eve 1941 following Pearl Harbor. In 2019 (12/15/19) we featured America’s greatest Christmas story; in 2018 it was lessons from Christmas shopping (12/16/18). All these are on our website: www.mllg.us and worth a read. Note: The genesis for this post was an article forwarded by a reader, but the words are our own.

The story of the birth of Jesus lies at the heart of Christmas. One prevalent narrative is that Jesus was born in a manger because the innkeeper raised prices due to the surge of visitors for the census. The innkeeper often is portrayed as a greedy, and even evil, capitalist. But was the innkeeper truly greedy? The following is from Luke 2-7.

“Caesar Augustus decreed a census be taken and everyone go to their town

to register. . . So, Joseph and Mary, who was with child, went to Bethlehem.

While there, Mary gave birth in a manger as there was no room at the inn.”

The Grinch Who Stole the First Christmas

The Roman government forced people to travel long distances at their own expense and at great risk to register for the census – for the purpose of taxation. Caesar knew there would be great danger and hardship but was oblivious. Conducting a census, even 2,022 years ago, could have been accomplished with much less human misery.

Why was it necessary to require travel? Why couldn’t people register where they lived? The Romans had a vaunted postal system that could have facilitated the census without hardship. Clearly, this was an egregious abuse of power. The hubris of government was responsible for Jesus being born in a manger instead of in his own home. It is incandescently clear that the grinch who stole the first Christmas was government.

Was the Innkeeper Greedy or Benevolent?

If the innkeeper raised prices due to the surge of travelers registering for the census, would that have been greedy or even evil? This situation is no different than the price of hotel rooms during a hurricane or a big football game. Prices convey valuable economic information. By adjusting prices when demand surges, consumers benefit.

Higher prices incentivize travelers to stay with friends or relatives or to lodge farther away where prices are lower. Some families that otherwise might have taken two rooms may decide to make do with one room. Some people may decide to stay for fewer nights. Higher prices would sharply increase the supply of rooms as many local residents may decide to rent out rooms in their home, or even their entire home.

The price mechanism assures more people will get more rooms than if prices remained static. Scarce hotel (or inn) rooms are allocated in the most economically efficient manner. Those who value rooms the most get them. Far from being evil, higher prices enable the market to allocate scarce resources to the benefit of all consumers.

###################################

The narrative of a greedy innkeeper is frequently the topic of Christmas sermons and school plays. It is economic ignorance and anti-capitalist drivel. The grinch who stole the first Christmas was government – and nothing has changed in 2,022 years.

BEST WISHES TO ALL OUR READERS FOR A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND FOR A NEW YEAR WITH MORE LIBERTY AND LESS GOVERNMENT!

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

More Liberty Less Government – mllg@cfl.rr.com – www.mllg.us

Facebook  Twitter  Linkedin