NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey i have this ideal that agrees with a lot of historians and former bankers. This belief says that anybody who holds the money holds the power. It also implies that who ever controls the money, controls all the power and is a stronger force then a standing army.

So i want your comments and thoughts to the following question:

Do you think that this statement holds true?

Of course those with more money have more power. That is something I think it is impossible to argue against.

I believe that statement is inherently anti-semitic.

I believe that statement is inherently anti-semitic.

The only stereotyping being done is being done by you. Not once did the OP mention Jewish people.

money = money.

Can take the form of power which = headaches, worry, stress in general.. worrying about your oh so sacred monies.. to paranoia and suicide.

Actually .. same thing as being poor, almost!

Just don't have to worry about basic stuff that the poor do. So poor have it x2 .. in general. Not counting extremes either way.

It depends. I think it's a correlation =/= causation error. It's just that the people with more important jobs, also tend to get paid more, but it is the job, not the money, that makes them more powerful.

Of course those with more money have more power. That is something I think it is impossible to argue against.
That depends on how you define "power", doesn't it? I can be a billionaire, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can make anyone do anything against their will. I can influence their choices by making those I like more attractive for them, but that's really as far as the unarguable part goes.

With the proper lawyers you can get out of almost any crime.

More money usually means more power, but even a broke hobo has SOME power.

Imagine what happened if you took every hobo in the US, every billionaire in the US, and held a vote on whether all the money in that group should be divided evenly (hint: there are a lot more hobos than biillionaires).

That depends on how you define "power", doesn't it? I can be a billionaire, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can make anyone do anything against their will. I can influence their choices by making those I like more attractive for them, but that's really as far as the unarguable part goes.

True. I should have said, "Tend to wield more power."

More money usually means more power, but even a broke hobo has SOME power.

Imagine what happened if you took every hobo in the US, every billionaire in the US, and held a vote on whether all the money in that group should be divided evenly (hint: there are a lot more hobos than biillionaires).

the hobos would have their votes bought for a few cases of Mad dog 20/20 and the billionaires would win ?

That failing the billionaires would get the courts involved to hold the vote as being unjust.

That failing the billionaires hide all their money in Switzerland and pretend to be Hobo until retirement.

You'd have to strap an awful lot of money to yourself to survive a bomb. :p

More money usually means more power, but even a broke hobo has SOME power.

Imagine what happened if you took every hobo in the US, every billionaire in the US, and held a vote on whether all the money in that group should be divided evenly (hint: there are a lot more hobos than biillionaires).

Hobo? How old are you?

Even in the classical sense of the great depression, I don't think too many hobos voted.

Even today, what is one of the prime requirements to vote? A place of residence so the homeless don't have much power......

You'd have to strap an awful lot of money to yourself to survive a bomb. :p

Ah...LG. Your timing is impeccable.

That depends on how you define "power", doesn't it? I can be a billionaire, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can make anyone do anything against their will. I can influence their choices by making those I like more attractive for them, but that's really as far as the unarguable part goes.

Yes you can. For example, eminent domain now allows private property to be taken by another private entity for it's own gain.

You can influence choices. You have far more resources to reach more people.

In politics. Who has more access to politicians. The billionaire or the common man?

LG is right though. money is -only- powerful to those who value it. it's powerless against those who don't. An abstract concept really won't help you against high explosives. :)

More money usually means more power, but even a broke hobo has SOME power.

Imagine what happened if you took every hobo in the US, every billionaire in the US, and held a vote on whether all the money in that group should be divided evenly (hint: there are a lot more hobos than biillionaires).
The hobos would all be too drunk/confused to find their way to a polling station, but the billionaires wouldn't vote either because they'd be too busy pouring bottles of champagne into the ocean from their yachts.

Hobo? How old are you?

Even in the classical sense of the great depression, I don't think too many hobos voted.

Even today, what is one of the prime requirements to vote? A place of residence so the homeless don't have much power......

Still 29, but keep in mind that the US no longer requires that voters own land (and hasn't for quite some time.)

If you want to split hairs, however, feel free to replace "hobo" with "people so poor they have to work two jobs simultaneously".

Still 29, but keep in mind that the US no longer requires that voters own land (and hasn't for quite some time.)

If you want to split hairs, however, feel free to replace "hobo" with "people so poor they have to work two jobs simultaneously".

You normally have to receive mail somewhere.

You'd have to strap an awful lot of money to yourself to survive a bomb. :p

I don't know. About 100 million should absorb most of the blast I would think.

You'd have to strap an awful lot of money to yourself to survive a bomb. :p

should only take about 10 million to bribe the guy to bomb somewhere else.

You'd have to strap an awful lot of money to yourself to survive a bomb. :p
You just have to pay other people to stand in the way of the blast. There are plenty willing to do it, I'm sure.

Still 29, but keep in mind that the US no longer requires that voters own land (and hasn't for quite some time.)


Who was talking about ownership of land? If that was the case then the renters would be excluded.

You have to have a place of residence to receive mail and register to vote.

If you want to split hairs, however, feel free to replace "hobo" with "people so poor they have to work two jobs simultaneously".

There is no splitting hairs. Hobo is a rather dated term. We call them homeless now.

You just have to pay other people to stand in the way of the blast. There are plenty willing to do it, I'm sure.

How much do you weigh? :p

Who was talking about ownership of land? If that was the case then the renters would be excluded.

You have to have a place of residence to receive mail and register to vote.

IIRC some places let you walk into the county courthouse or something and register to vote there. Even if it's only a single county with a mere 500 homeless people, that's still more homeless people in that one county than billionaires in the entire US.

I don't know. About 100 million should absorb most of the blast I would think.

I sense a Mythbusters coming on. :p

should only take about 10 million to bribe the guy to bomb somewhere else.

But if he bombs the person bribing him, he keeps the money and his job. ;)

You just have to pay other people to stand in the way of the blast. There are plenty willing to do it, I'm sure.

This is true. In fact, people dumb enough to die for money are usually pretty cheap. ;)

IIRC some places let you walk into the county courthouse or something and register to vote there. Even if it's only a single county with a mere 500 homeless people, that's still more homeless people in that one county than billionaires in the entire US.

It doesn't matter. A billionaire is going to have more influence then 500 homeless.

Never mind the fact that voting becomes less value when you are homeless.....

OR, power can be abused to gain more money. *cough, cough, F-22 cough!*

That depends on how you define "power", doesn't it? I can be a billionaire, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can make anyone do anything against their will. I can influence their choices by making those I like more attractive for them, but that's really as far as the unarguable part goes.

power.. power to influence with your money .. power.

It's deadly. Rarely turns out good.

Don't come at me with so and so charity organizations. St. Jude wasn't 'muscled' from power money..... as an example. Not saying bad money has never taken the form of good things. Can't name any rgiht now off the top of my head.. but I'm sure they exist.. especially since all those mobsters were Catholic.

OR, power can be abused to gain more money. *cough, cough, F-22 cough!*

That's called gambling. hehe

But if he bombs the person bribing him, he keeps the money and his job. ;)




Or i buy the bomb with 15 million dollars and don't give him the money until i safely have the bomb. Then i go drop it on the ones who were trying to bomb me.

Or i buy the bomb with 15 million dollars and don't give him the money until i safely have the bomb. Then i go drop it on the ones who were trying to bomb me.

Nah. I'm not sure how those high deals go .. but I'm sure it's not like that.

Nah. I'm not sure how those high deals go .. but I'm sure it's not like that.

Brief case full of money. In exchange for the Keys to your bomber. sounds pretty easy.

I'm betting they take it down to the street level and have an exchange go on with armed thugs on both sides. High End Thugs.

Brief case full of money. In exchange for the Keys to your bomber. sounds pretty easy.

I was thinking the actual exchange. Not what was exchanged.

During .. the 2 most powerful but not 'top dogs' wait for information. Who knows.

I was thinking the actual exchange. Not what was exchanged.

Call the would be bomber on his Cell Phone.

Yes you can. For example, eminent domain now allows private property to be taken by another private entity for it's own gain.
But is it my money that allows me to do this? Or is it just a stupid law? And does eminent domain as a principle only apply to rich people?

You can influence choices. You have far more resources to reach more people.
Yeah, but can I force people to make decisions that are against their will?

In politics. Who has more access to politicians. The billionaire or the common man?
The billionaire is not the one with the power then, the politician is.

power.. power to influence with your money .. power.
Hence why I'm asking for a definition of "power". If all it means is the ability to influence the decisions of others, then yes. By the same token, someone with big boobs, a pleasant voice or good oratory skills is powerful.

But that's not the same kind of power a politician has, for example. A politician doesn't have to convince me of anything, he has the ability to write a law that will be enforced even if I was never convinced that this law is a good thing. And very often people get those two kinds of power confused. The exercise of power that makes everyone voluntarily do something is not a bad thing. The exercise of power that forces people to behave in a certain way against their will is.

Of course it doesn't help that big money and politics seem to go together. But still, it's important to keep the two concepts separate and know what the true source of power is there.

By the same token, someone with big boobs, a pleasant voice or good oratory skills is powerful.


And after a modeling career very wealthy.
And can get laws written to make you do things after sleeping with a few politicians.

As the Notorious Fat Bastard and Piff Doody sang "Mo money mo problems" - if only we could work out who this Mo person is.

As the Notorious Fat Bastard and Piff Doody sang "Moe money moe problems" - if only we could work out who this Mo person is.

And rob Moe ???

I don't know if that's a good idea Moe seems rather tough.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/moe%20shot%20gun/addaminsain/Pentagun.jpg

And rob Moe ???

I don't know if that's a good idea Moe seems rather tough.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/moe%20shot%20gun/addaminsain/Pentagun.jpg

That must be the cause of the Mo problems

That must be the cause of the Mo problems

Trying the rob the guy who rigged 5 guns into one, or being the guy crazy enough to rig 5 guns into one.

A politician doesn't have to convince me of anything,
Except, you know, to elect him in the first place. And keep electing him. And contribute to his campaign fund so he can convince other people to elect him. And elect other politicians who will agree with him so that he can actually get his laws through, rather than simply scribbling, "We should do X! It would be awesome!" on a paper napkin and passing it around the Senate (or whatever) floor.
Billionaires, on the other hand, aren't elected. They come from whatever combination of dumb luck, business acumen and ruthlessness gave rise to them. They can then proceed to buy whatever politicians they need to carry out their plans because, as I mentioned earlier, politicians need money for their campaign funds.

Except, you know, to elect him in the first place. And keep electing him. And contribute to his campaign fund so he can convince other people to elect him. And elect other politicians who will agree with him so that he can actually get his laws through, rather than simply scribbling, "We should do X! It would be awesome!" on a paper napkin and passing it around the Senate (or whatever) floor.
Billionaires, on the other hand, aren't elected. They come from whatever combination of dumb luck, business acumen and ruthlessness gave rise to them. They can then proceed to buy whatever politicians they need to carry out their plans because, as I mentioned earlier, politicians need money for their campaign funds.

that just involves convincing a majority of people in your district to vote for you. If that proves difficult hire a charismatic 3rd party person(green party if opponent is democrat, constitutional party if opponent is republican.) to run n election and leave opponent with less votes then you.

More money = more power = more problems.

This is true. In fact, people dumb enough to die for money are usually pretty cheap. ;)
This^^. Money = power in a social system that grants power to money, but like everything in life, there's a catch. In many ways, the less you value the money, the more power you can access, with or without it.

Hey i have this ideal that agrees with a lot of historians and former bankers. This belief says that anybody who holds the money holds the power. It also implies that who ever controls the money, controls all the power and is a stronger force then a standing army.

So i want your comments and thoughts to the following question:

Do you think that this statement holds true?

The higher your income, the greater your power.

Power equals work divided by time. e.g. 50lbs moved 50 feet in 50 seconds.
Income equals work divided by time. e.g. $50,000 per year.

Therefore power equals income.

Money itself equals time. Therefore your Money equals the work you do divided by the power you've got.

It really depends on the society. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with it, but we had to read a few analyses of Middle Eastern political history by Bernard Lewis in one of my classes this semester. In them, he more posits the hypothesis that one of the key differences between Middle Eastern states and Western states is that in the West you make money to gain power, money is a vector for power; on the other hand, in Middle Eastern societies, power has traditionally been a vector for economic gain, i.e., you engage in a coup to gain political control and thus money, rather than gather up capital to engage in political control.

As I said, I'm not sure I really buy into that, though he has a pretty solid argument to back it up. But I do agree that in history there have been many societies in which wealth is not necessarily a vector for power but rather the other way around. In fact, I would say that throughout the majority of human history, this is actually the norm. The early city-states saw figures gaining power to gain wealth, rather than businessmen using their wealth to influence the political schema.

Except, you know, to elect him in the first place.
He could easily get by without me ever having voted for him. In fact, practically all politicians who ever ruled over me have.

Correct me if Im wrong, but pre-WWI United States had more money than the United Kingdom, but wasnt the British Empire still the preeminent world power at the time...

He could easily get by without me ever having voted for him. In fact, practically all politicians who ever ruled over me have.
They were, however, chosen to have their position by a sizable number of persons, which is more than I can say for George Soros. And politicians have to continue to be selected to hold power, you can't just take away a billionaire's allowance because you disapprove of what he's been up to for the past few years.

Hey i have this ideal that agrees with a lot of historians and former bankers. This belief says that anybody who holds the money holds the power. It also implies that who ever controls the money, controls all the power and is a stronger force then a standing army.

So i want your comments and thoughts to the following question:

Do you think that this statement holds true?

http://bkmarcus.com/blog/images/history/FrenchGuillotine.jpg

I disagree with that statement, though knowledge is certainly power.

They were, however, chosen to have their position by a sizable number of persons, which is more than I can say for George Soros.
George Soros has never passed a law in his life. He's not doing anything to anyone, while every single politician is. Hence why he doesn't need public approval, and they do.

And politicians have to continue to be selected to hold power, you can't just take away a billionaire's allowance because you disapprove of what he's been up to for the past few years.
Again, that's not really important to what I'm talking about. There are lots of things and people who I can't decide over. In fact, that's the vast majority of people on the planet. But that doesn't mean they have "power".

On one hand you can have a shit load of money, and buy power in the form of more money, or a small army. On the other hand you can be extremely charismatic, and a great leader which would enable you to lead masses of poor.

Depends on perspective methinks.

But is it my money that allows me to do this? Or is it just a stupid law?

They are not mutually exclusive.

And does eminent domain as a principle only apply to rich people?

It can. Think of it this way: how many politicians would it take to make that a law? How much money would it take to bribe, sorry, supplement the campaign funds of those politicians? Would you then make back that money through such a law? Simple costs-benefits analysis.

Yeah, but can I force people to make decisions that are against their will?

Yes. Either directly through violence, using your very expensive lawyer team to get you off, or by hiring a proffessional.

The billionaire is not the one with the power then, the politician is.

If the politician does what the billionaire pays him or her to do, then the billionaire can buy the politicians power.

It depends. I think it's a correlation =/= causation error. It's just that the people with more important jobs, also tend to get paid more, but it is the job, not the money, that makes them more powerful.

The problem is, slaves tend to do shitty work, but a paid--even low paid--voluntary employee tends to have far superior quality.

So, you can have all of the guns you want, but without some butter to lubricate the system, it's going to be clanky and crappy--kind of like the USSR.

Hey i have this ideal that agrees with a lot of historians and former bankers. This belief says that anybody who holds the money holds the power. It also implies that who ever controls the money, controls all the power and is a stronger force then a standing army.

So i want your comments and thoughts to the following question:

Do you think that this statement holds true?

I think this relies on the idea that money is some solid "thing", which may have been true a long time ago, but now, it's more abstract. That said, I'm not an economist, so maybe I just don't understand the details.

Hey i have this ideal that agrees with a lot of historians and former bankers. This belief says that anybody who holds the money holds the power. It also implies that who ever controls the money, controls all the power and is a stronger force then a standing army.

So i want your comments and thoughts to the following question:

Do you think that this statement holds true?

All that founding father talk about standing armies being powerful is sort of silly. However, it is clear that fi you have money you have power. This is why there is the moral imperative to become wealthy. Once you are wealthy you can be part of the solution to the problems of the world. Until you have money you are kinda like part of the problem. So get rich y'all!

George Soros has never passed a law in his life. He's not doing anything to anyone, while every single politician is. Hence why he doesn't need public approval, and they do.
Because laws are the only way of exercising power, and laws, once passed, are automatically followed by everyone. Oh yes, this is definitely the way things occur and/or are.
Again, that's not really important to what I'm talking about. There are lots of things and people who I can't decide over. In fact, that's the vast majority of people on the planet. But that doesn't mean they have "power".
And I'm talking about the difference between power with oversight/controls (that of a politician), and power unbeholding to anyone (that of a billionaire). The latter is greater than the former.

It can. Think of it this way: how many politicians would it take to make that a law? How much money would it take to bribe, sorry, supplement the campaign funds of those politicians? Would you then make back that money through such a law? Simple costs-benefits analysis.
Nonetheless, the money is not the source of the law, or the source of the power to make law. It's the source of an ability to get people with power to hopefully do something I want. But if there is no politician with power to bribe, then I'm no more powerful than anyone else.

Yes. Either directly through violence, using your very expensive lawyer team to get you off, or by hiring a proffessional.
Then it's not the money, but my violence that is causing them to act against their will.

If the politician does what the billionaire pays him or her to do, then the billionaire can buy the politicians power.
It seems to me like you're equating the fact that money can make accessing sources of power easier with the source of power itself. But money is a medium of free exchange between people who act in their own interest, a trade (and money can only be used in a trade) can't be against the will of either party. If it were, it wouldn't be a trade anymore, but some sort of extortion or something.

Because laws are the only way of exercising power, and laws, once passed, are automatically followed by everyone. Oh yes, this is definitely the way things occur and/or are.
Well, hence why I've been asking for a definition of power from the very start. If power is simply the ability to influence others, then yes, money gives you that. But if it is the ability to actually enforce your will against the will of others, then money can't possibly do that. At best it can make it easier to get the people with power on your side.

And I'm talking about the difference between power with oversight/controls (that of a politician), and power unbeholding to anyone (that of a billionaire). The latter is greater than the former.
Well, the way billionaires can buy politicians is their only source of power you've said anything about. But when they do that, then the exercise of that goes through the politician and is hence subject to the same oversight and controls that any action of the politician is subject to.

But if it is the ability to actually enforce your will against the will of others, then money can't possibly do that.

Of course it can, that's trivial. Buy a gun.

Or hey, buy a dozen henchmen with guns. Buy a tank, or a thermonuclear warhead.

It may be impossible to buy certain people off for certain things, but a door will always be open for money.

Well, hence why I've been asking for a definition of power from the very start. If power is simply the ability to influence others, then yes, money gives you that. But if it is the ability to actually enforce your will against the will of others, then money can't possibly do that. At best it can make it easier to get the people with power on your side.
A politician can't make anyone do something they weren't already willing to do. Laws are, at best, a gentle prodding in the direction of a "legal life."
Well, the way billionaires can buy politicians is their only source of power you've said anything about. But when they do that, then the exercise of that goes through the politician and is hence subject to the same oversight and controls that any action of the politician is subject to.
This is patently untrue. Politicians provide screens for the people who finance them, and politicians can be replaced when public opinion turns against them.
Outside of politicians, billionaires can also influence public opinion (through ownership of news media), avoid laws they don't like by hiring expensive lawyers (or just paying the fines associated with their actions and then rolling on), travel to avoid the consequences of their actions, and, when everything else fails, there are hired goons.

Nonetheless, the money is not the source of the law, or the source of the power to make law. It's the source of an ability to get people with power to hopefully do something I want. But if there is no politician with power to bribe, then I'm no more powerful than anyone else.


Then it's not the money, but my violence that is causing them to act against their will.


It seems to me like you're equating the fact that money can make accessing sources of power easier with the source of power itself. But money is a medium of free exchange between people who act in their own interest, a trade (and money can only be used in a trade) can't be against the will of either party. If it were, it wouldn't be a trade anymore, but some sort of extortion or something.


Well, hence why I've been asking for a definition of power from the very start. If power is simply the ability to influence others, then yes, money gives you that. But if it is the ability to actually enforce your will against the will of others, then money can't possibly do that. At best it can make it easier to get the people with power on your side.


Well, the way billionaires can buy politicians is their only source of power you've said anything about. But when they do that, then the exercise of that goes through the politician and is hence subject to the same oversight and controls that any action of the politician is subject to.

Okay. If you want to very literal about it, money is not power.

That does not change the simple and obvious fact that those with money can use that money to force other people to do what they want by simply buying those forces that can coerce the people into doing what the rich want.

So, while money is not power, money is a way of getting power.

This reminds me of the mayoral campaign in Waegawan.
The campaign consisted of the mayor riding around in the back of a pick up truck with two Bikini models on his arms, talking about vote for him.

Yeah that was a good use for money.