Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Which do you value more and why?

Can you have power without money?

Oooh good one.

I'd take money over political power any day of the week. Elon Musk and Bill Gates have arguably accomplished (or can accomplish) more than any politician for the betterment of humankind.

Now if you're talking about power for powers sake (like I become a powerful sith lord overnight) I'd prefer it only so I can seize whatever means needed through force.


Money = Power, but Power /= Money.

Originally posted by Kurk
Oooh good one.

I'd take money over political power any day of the week. Elon Musk and Bill Gates have arguably accomplished (or can accomplish) more than any politician for the betterment of humankind.

Now if you're talking about power for powers sake (like I become a powerful sith lord overnight) I'd prefer it only so I can seize whatever means needed through force.


Money = Power, but Power /= Money.

Can you name a single person who rose to power without money?

Originally posted by Surtur
Can you name a single person who rose to power without money?

Something of interest is that you can gain "power" through social media outlets temporarily like David Hogg without money.

What do you mean by power?

The power to influence? The power to make things change when you want them to? Does this power allow said person to not be impacted by laws or social values of a society so they are above all?

What's power in this discussion, money is defined by its name.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Something of interest is that you can gain "power" through social media outlets temporarily like David Hogg without money.

What do you mean by power?

The power to influence? The power to make things change when you want them to? Does this power allow said person to not be impacted by laws or social values of a society so they are above all?

What's power in this discussion, money is defined by its name.

That's temporary power though. Yeah, social media can give dipshits their 15 minutes of fame.

This douches latest boycott failed cuz nobody cares anymore. That's not real power lol.

I'd say power honestly, though the two are often the same thing.

It's honestly impossible to say.

Money allows you to go to the road to power. It allows you to go into higher and higher levels of society, get more and more influence, more and more tools.

Power gives you easy opportunities to get money. It allows you to get money off the thing you hold in your power.

When you disconnect them entirely, although it's possible only in an academic discourse - money allows you the better lifestyle, gives you more security in case of life tragedy; power gives you social standing, accomplishments. (disconnecting how money leads to power and vice versa) Then it's just a matter of taste.

Define "power."

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Define "power."

Power is the ability to influence and/or command people.

Bernie Sanders has power but not *that* much money. A random hedge fund manager has more money but relatively less power. Trump has lots of both.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Define "power."

Power is Money, and Money is Power.

^ they're correlated but not identical. President Obama didn't have as much personal money as Ray Dalio, but was certainly more powerful.

But Obama had BIG MONEY Backing Him.

They're quite related, but if you're talking about them in "equivalent" amounts I would imagine that power is more desirable for most people.

Originally posted by Surtur
Can you have power without money?

Chief Justice Roberts has a net worth of about 6 million dollars. There are lots of random bankers worth more than that, yet Roberts is certainly more powerful than almost all of them by virtue of being able to hand down court decisions, which doesn't really rely on his personal wealth. I suppose you could say that it ultimately ties back to the wealth of the United States backing him, but that's an imperfect measurement: medieval England could not build an aircraft carrier even if you gave it unlimited money. Some things you can improve with money, but gradually and in confluence with other factors.

Either is a tool than can be used to gain more of the other. It simply depends on the ambitions of the person.

@Elm — It ties back to the military being beholden to the government and thus capable of enforcing decisions if necessary. That implicit threat forces compliance with decisions.

Originally posted by SunRazer
@Elm — It ties back to the military being beholden to the government and thus capable of enforcing decisions if necessary. That implicit threat forces compliance with decisions.

Is that how your Government in your country?

Cause that isn't how the Gov in the U.S does things.

Neither the legislature's passed legislation nor the courts' decisions have any significance outside of our heads unless they can be physically enforced, and that's not done by tooth fairies. So that's exactly how the US government does things.

Case in point: the Little Rock Nine incident. Or the Whiskey Rebellion.

I don't recall seeing Tanks and Armed Soldiers on every street corner in Modern U.S. Is that how it works in Far, far away...?

Yes, because you agree to all of the legislation and court decisions knowing that you'll be forced to (or forced into jail or some other punishment) by soldiers if you don't. Have you tried disobeying and letting the state know that you're breaking the law?

....

http://www.failwars.blog.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/tumblr_lahh7dKHF71qbyqcv1.gif

money, id on't wanna have to manage other people

The Tsar was already deposed when Lenin launched his coup (it was a provisional government that he overthrew), but that's a good example nonetheless.

Also a good example for exploring why a government loses power once it no longer owns a monopoly on violence.

lol yeah thanks for the correction.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Chief Justice Roberts has a net worth of about 6 million dollars. There are lots of random bankers worth more than that, yet Roberts is certainly more powerful than almost all of them by virtue of being able to hand down court decisions, which doesn't really rely on his personal wealth. I suppose you could say that it ultimately ties back to the wealth of the United States backing him, but that's an imperfect measurement: medieval England could not build an aircraft carrier even if you gave it unlimited money. Some things you can improve with money, but gradually and in confluence with other factors.

I guess now the question is how do you define "money"? We talking billions? Cuz I have to assume Justice Roberts went to college. I have to assume that cost money.

Therefore, he could not have attained his power without money. But he wouldn't of needed to be a millionaire just to go to college.

To be honest for most people money and power are just a way of getting good sex. Look at Trump, Bill Clinton or Ghengis Khan. Obviously for Incels it's different and freakish.

In a Lost situation, on a deserted island where there's limited resources, or a Zombie apocalypse I'd take power. In those situations, money would mean nothing.

In regular society, money can buy you power but power can't get you money so Money is more valuable.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Which do you value more and why?

Really depends how much of each. But lets say it's either 200million USD or the ability to influence and sway 100million of your fellow Americans (or about 1/3rd of the citizenry of another country)

I'd still pick the 200million USD, as I'm not sure I'd use the vast amount of power to sway that many people for the greater good. You could make or break politics with that much.

ITgKLIWs5xY

Money. Easily. I couldn't care less about leading or lording over others. Besides, a certain degree of power is inherent with a lot of money. It's the same with mone or fame. I'll take money all day every day.

Originally posted by Surtur
Can you name a single person who rose to power without money?

Abraham Lincoln, for sure.

But every president on this list that is <1:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_net_wor
th


Edit - The above link does not work and I don't know why. Try this:

https://tinyurl.com/hjoylfm

see, power might beat money, but that doesn't mean all people care about which one is more "powerful". What's easier to use? Money.

If knowledge is power and power corrupts, how the human kind ever survives?

Originally posted by Surtur
Can you have power without money?

Politician or policeman.

Originally posted by Surtur
Can you have power without money?
Well Surtur, think of people such as Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Sargon, etc.

They aren't poor, but they certainly have an influence disproportionate to their wealth.

I think I'd find it easier to gather a fortune from any position of power I found myself in than I would trying to become more influential by using money from a lottery win for example.

Bah, too much money/power is more curse than blessing IMO. I've seen first hand an excess of money destroy ppl and an excess of power turn ppl into absolute monsters.

Pretty content where I am from an economic/influence standpoint so I would go likely neither.

Edit. If the question is merely "what is more valuable to you as a person, not what you want more of", then: Money. Because it allows me to get necessities and things I need for myself and my family. Power has no value to me because I see it as simply how much influence you can inflict on others.

Originally posted by samhain
I think I'd find it easier to gather a fortune from any position of power I found myself in than I would trying to become more influential by using money from a lottery win for example.

That's because lottery money is "small change" by power broker standards.

If you can turn those winnings into a perpetual revenue machine for the right people/groups, that's how you gather power.

I'd want want money. You might not have influence over as many people with money as you would holding something like a high level executive position within the US government, but money gives you a much more direct and extensive level of control over those you do hold influence over. So if I have to choose between Bill Gate's fortune and the position of POTUS, I'm picking the fortune every time. I'd buy an Island, buy 1,000 or so families from a few poor countries, and live the rest of my life like a God King in a palace with a few dozen concubines. I mean how much more power does one really need?

There's the old cliche that money can't buy you happiness, which is true to an extent. However, the more money you have, the more freedom of choice you can afford.

Think of how much money we make each year, and how much of that is spent just on necessities, like housing, food, utilities, transportation, medicine, and medical care. Most people can barely afford to survive, nevermind pursue their passions in life or travel.

Also, think of how much of our lives we spend in school, going to work, and everything in between. People always say that time is money, but I see it the other way around. With enough money, you can do pretty much whatever you want, when you want to do it. That certainly is much more appealing than working our lives away at mundane 40-hour+/week jobs, or careers that don't quite live up to what we expected them to be.

Originally posted by cdtm
That's because lottery money is "small change" by power broker standards.

If you can turn those winnings into a perpetual revenue machine for the right people/groups, that's how you gather power.


I just used lottery win as a simple way to explain a sudden windfall of millions. The real point I was trying to make is that it's harder nowadays to convert a sudden windfall into power as the establishment has this old money/new money thing going on now.