Money vs. Power

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...?