Post: #101

(02-23-2014 01:37 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 01:32 PM)Moma Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 01:09 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  Realistically I would take power>looks>money. I would make the money myself, but if I could get the looks I could get the power. Get into the in crowd through your looks by becoming a model, and forge a name for yourself through the capital you get through that job. Solidify your powerbase by being involved with said power base and earn the money yourself. Proceed to do some James Bond level bad guy shit and sleep with the wives and girlfriends of the powerful as well as creating your own harem. I see nothing wrong with this.

Is it possible to have power without wealth? Or wealth without power

Wealth is achieved on the road to power. Just ask our good friend Rasputin during the end of the Russian Empire. He achieved power through stopping the prince's bleeding, but he him self was not wealthy. He got wealth through his relation to the Tsar.

With power you WILL have wealth. Impossible to have one without the other for an extended duration of time. These are really conceptual states to represent access to resources. I think power represents ability to gain access to certain resources meaningful in life vs wealth representing ACTUALLY having access to those resources.

I know that may sound confusing but you get my drift..

Post: #102

(02-22-2014 04:39 PM)Snuke Wrote:  I would go with looks. You have to be born with good looks whereas you can make wealth. Wealth also becomes much easier to collect if you were in the top 1% of the world in looks.

Not really, look at all the actors in LA. Doubt they are getting wealthy. Also, money can grow over time, and while good looking men age better than good looking women, that physical beauty diminishes over time.

Looks can be fixed so to say with surgery if it matters that much.

What is missing is whether or not you are smart plus good looks, or wealthy plus smart.

I am sure there are other variables. But if you're an idiot, you can easily lose all your wealth and also never make any.

Plus what Excelsior said

Post: #103

if i was in the top 1% wealthy, i could spend a lot of my free time and some of my loots on a personal trainer and chef/nutritionist to maintain my health and get back to a ... "more desireable" weight and body type. I'd still be ugly as sin, but i'd have abs of steel and money in the bank to fun shit.

Post: #104

(02-23-2014 02:23 PM)Moma Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 01:37 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 01:32 PM)Moma Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 01:09 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  Realistically I would take power>looks>money. I would make the money myself, but if I could get the looks I could get the power. Get into the in crowd through your looks by becoming a model, and forge a name for yourself through the capital you get through that job. Solidify your powerbase by being involved with said power base and earn the money yourself. Proceed to do some James Bond level bad guy shit and sleep with the wives and girlfriends of the powerful as well as creating your own harem. I see nothing wrong with this.

Is it possible to have power without wealth? Or wealth without power

Wealth is achieved on the road to power. Just ask our good friend Rasputin during the end of the Russian Empire. He achieved power through stopping the prince's bleeding, but he him self was not wealthy. He got wealth through his relation to the Tsar.

With power you WILL have wealth. Impossible to have one without the other for an extended duration of time. These are really conceptual states to represent access to resources. I think power represents ability to gain access to certain resources meaningful in life vs wealth representing ACTUALLY having access to those resources.

I know that may sound confusing but you get my drift..

I agree power is partially the ability to gain wealth, but I think it's also the ability to gain repute amongst other as well as to gain influence. With wealth you may have power, but with power you always have wealth. I would say it's similar to how a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle does not have to be a square(power being the square and rectangle being wealth).
Edit: Also without a reputation or ability to influence(power in essence) you will never be able to get those resources.

Post: #105

dude, is this even a fucking question? I'll WAY RATHER BE in the wealthy top 1%. with money, you can fix your looks, have fun everywhere, get a shitload of stupid girls to use up and throw them away like I throw toilet paper, and I can live just about anywhere in this planet.

Post: #106

The problem with the power is better than money view is that we just don't live in that kid if world anymore. Julius Caesar was able to turn his membership in the nobility to take command of a legion and use his legion to accumulate personal wealth and eventually rule Rome as an empower. In America, generals were able to become presidents, but presidents have limited power. And our two most famous recent generals, Colin Powell and David Petreus, couldn't even make it that far.

In contemporary Amerca, you need money before you can have real power.

Post: #107

I think people are really, really overestimating the value of looks for a man. Charisma/confidence, height and physical build are probably 90% of what make a man physically attractive to a woman. A good looking face is icing on the cake. If you have everything else, being average looking is not a dealbreaker.

Assuming, "looks" encompasses all those things though, then obviously it becomes more valuable. For example, contrast a guy like The Rock with any random male model. The Rock has insane charisma, athletic ability and good looks that he leveraged into a highly successful entertainment career. The average male model is nowhere near as successful or as desirable to women, simply because he's just a good looking guy and probably not exceptional otherwise.

Looks alone do very little for a man, especially compared to a woman, who can get by in life very well exclusively relying on looks. Even a great looking man will have to hustle to turn his good looks into money/success, while a great looking woman literally just has to walk around and wait for a high status man to pluck her out of the crowd.

If 1% wealth is $8 million or something in that range then I'd take the money. Combine that with red pill knowledge and you'd be much better off than just another random pretty boy trying to skate by on his looks.

Post: #108

But the thing is money can be gained through having power. Conventional military is dead. There are notable mercenary groups if you dig deep enough into the black market(I would rather not have further inquiries into this part because of obvious reasons). This is where a "legion" of sorts can be formed. You can use your rank in the military or association with powerful people to build wealth still. Caesar was also a rich man while he was in the military as well as climbing into nobility. Today's nobility are the wealthy so simply gain wealth from a position of power. Power can be gained more easily through your looks and most people whom know how to use their looks can work their way to power. Through power you gain wealth, and through that the circle is complete and more doors open up.
Edit: I was assuming top 1% of looks included charisma/confidence because just a pretty face does not put you in the top 1% of men in terms of looks. A key part to appearance is charisma/confidence as well as a strong physical body.

Post: #109

Top 1% of money in the world is not 8 million. In the States only is it 8 million. Independent of nation it's about $440,000 per year salary.

Post: #110

I think the question should be re-phrased to top .0001 or something like that.

Post: #111

(02-23-2014 02:58 PM)soup Wrote:  I think the question should be re-phrased to top .0001 or something like that.

If it was this much it wouldn't be a competition. That much money is the equivalent to having power. The world would be my plaything.

Post: #112

Even if you look good, you still need to have game (a different kind of game, but still game). If you look good, that doesn't mean you can automatically parlay the effect into a modeling or an acting career (in fact - how many models have 'crossed over' and become big actors?). If you're top 1% looks but average across the rest of the board, then you'll still need to deal with the same bullshit that most of the rest of us do (I went to school with a guy who I would consider a 1%er in looks, and I've seen him get a few layups with decent girls at parties, but because he has no game and he's so attractive that girls are afraid to approach him, instead of smashing 19-21 year old hotties, he's married to an Asian 6 [he isn't very bright]).

So you look like Brad Pitt and get an extra few pieces of 7-8 pussy thrown at you every year...that's nice and everything, but pussy doesn't pay the bills. Pussy doesn't put you in business class to some tropical island where you have a magnificent beach house that pussy paid for. In terms of full lifestyle, I'd much prefer to be 'okay' looking and wealthy, than some Brad Pitt doppelganger making $18 an hour.

With money, without forgetting the obvious advantages in terms of pussy it can get you (which for a guy with game is not negligible - the reason gold diggers exist is because 99% of rich guys game is 'flash cash and see if it works' game, not how I'd do it) comes the most important thing in life; freedom.


Wanna just up and go to Seychelles for a month? Okay, put it on the black card.

Worried about a minor flaw of your looks? Plastic surgery is cheaper, better and more readily available than ever.

Wanna buy that sports car? Just do it, it's only a month's salary.

Need to lose or gain weight to maximize your body? Money buys the best personal trainers and nutritionists.

Need to step your wardrobe up? Savile Row, Hong Kong, Milan, NYC, no problem.

Wanna bang 100 girls a year? Doubt you can do it if you're stationary in one place all year; travel.

Stupid enough to get married? Even after the divorce you'll be fine.

Respect? Can be bought.

Power? Can be bought.

Influence? Can be bought.

Love? Can be bought.


What would I do if I had 1% looks? Pretty much the same thing I do right now (not insinuating I have 1% looks, more like a 7 who cleans up to an 8)...work a job I hate until I can leave (soon), have enough money to have some fun but not enough to be totally safe at all times, but also send out headshots and take acting classes.

What would I do if I had 1% money? Whatever the hell I wanted (even if just 8+ mil net is 1% money). 1% money in an absolute walk.

Post: #113

(02-23-2014 02:27 PM)silent_scope Wrote:  if i was in the top 1% wealthy, i could spend a lot of my free time and some of my loots on a personal trainer and chef/nutritionist to maintain my health and get back to a ... "more desireable" weight and body type. I'd still be ugly as sin, but i'd have abs of steel and money in the bank to fun shit.

any average man can get a girl with above looks and character if they put the work in (i.e game, bank, charisma, etc.). and what better thing than to have the bank and game huh?

Post: #114

I think more clarification on looks need to be added in saying you will have confidence and charisma as well. I assumed this the second I read the post.

Post: #115

(02-23-2014 03:03 PM)Hispanic_Reasoning Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 02:27 PM)silent_scope Wrote:  if i was in the top 1% wealthy, i could spend a lot of my free time and some of my loots on a personal trainer and chef/nutritionist to maintain my health and get back to a ... "more desireable" weight and body type. I'd still be ugly as sin, but i'd have abs of steel and money in the bank to fun shit.

any average man can get a girl with above looks and character if they put the work in (i.e game, bank, charisma, etc.). and what better thing than to have the bank and game huh?

Sorry but confidence, charisma, game, and good looks still tops this. Making the money would be a breeze.

Post: #116

(02-23-2014 03:07 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  Sorry but confidence, charisma, game, and good looks still tops this. Making the money would be a breeze.

hah Yeah, yeah, making 8 million + is a breeze for good looking people. Look at the Forbes richest list.

Post: #117

(02-23-2014 03:07 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 03:03 PM)Hispanic_Reasoning Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 02:27 PM)silent_scope Wrote:  if i was in the top 1% wealthy, i could spend a lot of my free time and some of my loots on a personal trainer and chef/nutritionist to maintain my health and get back to a ... "more desireable" weight and body type. I'd still be ugly as sin, but i'd have abs of steel and money in the bank to fun shit.

any average man can get a girl with above looks and character if they put the work in (i.e game, bank, charisma, etc.). and what better thing than to have the bank and game huh?

Sorry but confidence, charisma, game, and good looks still tops this. Making the money would be a breeze.

I am not saying that confidence, charisma, and game doesn't top. I am saying that with being in the top 1% in terms of wealth, I don't have to worry about building wealth and can just concentrate on improving myself in terms of confidence, looks, and game. having all of that, plus bank, is the killer for everything.

-if i need to constantly get laid without wanting to go to shitty clubs, I can just p4p in places like Germany.

-if I want to hit it up in the Maldives with a broad, I can just fly there no problem without having to worry about my job and money.

-if i need to fix my look, I can just buy some good clothes in Milan, NYC, Paris, Hong Kong, etc, get surgery, or get me an expert trainer.

Post: #118

THIS IS A STUPID QUESTION!!! (No offense to Sugar, the OP, I'm a fan of Sugar)

Wealth is more powerful than looks and its not even close.

It's not even remotely close.

I would rather be an ugly billionaire than a handsome bum.

Post: #119

Wonder how many of us are more wealthy vs. More good looking.

Ie. My salary probably puts me at an income of about average in the country. By being fit and dressing well, basically anyone puts themselves in at least the top 10% in terms of looks.

Really, being good looking is much easier, after a haircut and a shopping trip and some time in the gym, you can achieve a huge boost.

Post: #120

(02-23-2014 03:15 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  THIS IS A STUPID QUESTION!!! (No offense to Sugar, the OP, I'm a fan of Sugar)
I would rather be an ugly billionaire than a handsome bum.

looks is subjective. you can go to Point A and you will get rated in lowest tier of looks. However, you can go to Point B and you can be rated in the top 1% of looks. what makes it easier to move from Point A to Point B?

Dough

Post: #121

(02-23-2014 03:10 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 03:07 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  Sorry but confidence, charisma, game, and good looks still tops this. Making the money would be a breeze.

hah Yeah, yeah, making 8 million + is a breeze for good looking people. Look at the Forbes richest list.

Sorry but that's in the United States. In the world it's a measly $440,000 per year.

Post: #122

(02-23-2014 07:28 AM)Maciano Wrote:  In House of Cars Kevin Spacey says this after running into his former protege Remy:

"Such a waste of time, he chose money over power. In this town, a mistake nearly everyone makes. Money is the McMansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after ten years. Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries. I can not respect someone that doesn’t see the difference."

So, I guess the choice should be between 1% in looks & 1% in power.

If that's the choice, the latter would be better: power > money or looks.

The choice is usually not nearly as stark as Frank made it out to be. Money often is power. Power often doesn't come absent money - this is a big reason why your typical congressman/woman is quite well off. Your average Senator is worth just under $3 million (and that's just what they disclose publicly - there's much more). When you start talking about the more powerful, well known and influential members of congress (ex: Pelosi, Issa, Cantor, etc), you begin talking about much larger sums of money than that average.

Money is, more often than not, the main gateway to power: it is the wealthy who get a leg up in the race for elected positions or in the race for influential political appointments (ex: the appointment of Hank Paulson as Sec. of Treasury, among other similar appointments). Political fundraisers are some of the most powerful people in this country. They use their money and the vast connections they've obtained to raise money for political candidates, who in turn often depend on them. Some have gone as far as to say that these people are basically puppetmasters, pulling strings in the House/Senate and ruining the democratic process because their cash is giving them too much influence. They're not lying - these people can often control the political narrative with the money they spend funding political campaigns and producing political advertisements, nevermind the business interests they can leverage (ex: Congressman A must be wary of Millionaire B potentially shutting down his business in his district and costing Congressman A jobs and political capital).

Names like Warren Buffett, Koch (both brothers), Sheldon Anderson, and many others who are much less well known (Steyer, Singer, Schlosstein, Norcross, etc), are really some of the most powerful men in the USA, more so than all but a handful of men/women in Washington. These are people whose wealth and fundraising prowess give them control over much of the political narrative: they can almost totally LOCK DOWN politics in their local stomping grounds (state/municipal elections and appointments, for example) and they can essentially buy influence in the US Senate and House as well. Congressmen/women grovel to these people - there are hedge fund managers out there who have these men and women lining up outside of their offices just to get a word in edgewise.

In the developing world, the relationship between money and power is even more blatant thanks to lower transparency (more corruption, nepotism, etc), greater inequality, and other crucial factors.

Consider the Phillipines, one of the largest nations in South Asia, where political power is almost entirely hogged by a handful of wealthy families.

Or consider Thailand, where the control wealthy political dynasties wield is even stronger. It's bad enough that the Prime Minister's seat in that nation has essentially been passed around in a single family for the better part of a decade now. Why have they been able to hold onto political power? They're obscenely rich, that's why.

I could go on - these narratives play out in a lot of other developing countries where a cunning individual with just a few million dollars can essentially buy his/her way to the top.

And, speaking of House of Cards, this show is not at all out of line with what I'm saying here. Consider all of this (I'm gonna try not to spoil anything here for those who haven't watched it all yet):

-Who is Frank's most powerful rival in the show? Answer: Raymond Tusk.

-Why is Raymond Tusk so powerful? Answer: He's got absurd amounts of money, which he has used to discreetly exert significant amounts of influence on the political process in Washington for decades.

-Who is the President of the United States in "House of Cards"? Answer: Garrett Walker.

-How did Garrett Walker become the President of the United States? Answer: He became bosom buddies with one of its richest men, Raymond Tusk, as the CEO of Tusk's airline. This relationship made him rich as well, and got him a direct line to the White House.

-Who is a major foreign player in the second season of House of Cards? Answer: Xander Feng.

-Why is Xander Feng such a big factor? Answer: He's a billionaire.

-Remy's move got him more power. He had more influence as a highly paid lobbyist than he did as one of Frank's not-so-highly paid henchmen.

-House of Cards, in its bid to give you good drama, doesn't tell you the whole story about the influence money has in politics. To keep it simple, the show makes money seem like less of a gamechanger than it actually is, and it is that creative license what allows Frank to directly lock horns with someone like Raymond Tusk and other really wealthy people (thus creating good television). In real life, big players like Tusk and Feng have a much easier time influencing US politics with their cash than the show let's on, and their activities are FAR harder for the likes of Underwood and his henchmen to counter. In the real world, Remy's choice is not a bad one to make. Money is power.

-Don't forget how Frank Underwood himself got started in politics to begin with: he married a VERY rich woman and rode her money to his first seat in congress.

Post: #123

(02-23-2014 03:25 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 03:10 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 03:07 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  Sorry but confidence, charisma, game, and good looks still tops this. Making the money would be a breeze.

hah Yeah, yeah, making 8 million + is a breeze for good looking people. Look at the Forbes richest list.

Sorry but that's in the United States. In the world it's a measly $440,000 per year.

Let's use some common sense here, shall we? When you hear about the 1% you automatically think wealthy.

This question was based on being wealthy or being in the top 1% of looks.

Where I am from, 440k is not wealthy and therefore brings nothing to the table when it comes to this question.

If you were in the Philippines and 440k was wealthy, then I can see you answering based on that premise.

Let's not nitpick on details like world averages when we all know what the premise of this question was based on.

Post: #124

Again the wealthiest of people are not always powerful though. Look at all those celebrities making bank. They don't use the bank to get power. They're more than happy wasting life away on hardcore drugs and partying. Wealth is not the only gateway to power. It is actually the hardest gateway in my opinion. It is also the most unreliable as your powerbase slips the the second you lack the appropriate funds. You're only a walking ATM with money alone. Once it's gone the courage and bravado of your subordinates is too.

Post: #125

(02-23-2014 03:31 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 03:25 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 03:10 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 03:07 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  Sorry but confidence, charisma, game, and good looks still tops this. Making the money would be a breeze.

hah Yeah, yeah, making 8 million + is a breeze for good looking people. Look at the Forbes richest list.

Sorry but that's in the United States. In the world it's a measly $440,000 per year.

Let's use some common sense here, shall we? When you hear about the 1% you automatically think wealthy.

This question was based on being wealthy or being in the top 1% of looks.

Where I am from, 440k is not wealthy and therefore brings nothing to the table when it comes to this question.

If you were in the Philippines and 440k was wealthy, then I can see you answering based on that premise.

Let's not nitpick on details like world averages when we all know what the premise of this question was based on.

The question simply stated top 1% of money. Since there are people on this forum not from or living in the United States it is safe to assume that you are looking top 1% of the world. You seem to be skewing the question in your favor. We aren't looking at top 1% in your country because this question is not about your specific area.