It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Money is NOT Power.

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools


Just my opinion though.

 


It's a fair opinion

What I would say to that though, is if Jeffery Dampler had power and influence over his family members, they would not tried that in the first place.

Essentially, they didn't feel he was deserving of the money. They were jealous, resented him and went after him.

The ramifications of this line of thought is profound if you consider who is at the top, why they are there, who is at the bottom and why they remain there. Certainly Jeffery could hire an army as you say, but that is not power. He would eventually go broke funding that army from his detractors, making him destitute, leading to either the same consequence because he lost his protection, or into the same place he started.

If you believe that you are powerful simply because you have a handful of cash, you need to reassess what you believe is power.

That's the moral.



Thank you for contributing.





posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   
the money I earn represents 40 hours of my time and ENERGY that I expend creating a product for my boss. I give some of that money to the bank, to pay on a loan....for the right to live in the home that I do.

energy is power!! so those that amass large sums of money have amassed a large amount of energy from a number of people. the have skimmed the power from you, and can use it at will....for whatever they want.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
So, in essence the question is not what power is, because outside of the human/animal context power has no meaning, but rather the question is: "how is a powerful person defined?" And this is all that interested parties would be interested in, because everyone seeks power in one way or another.

In the story of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, who stands out as a powerful person? Is it Jesus himself, as he whips the money lenders in the temple? Is it Judas who sells him out for a bag of Shekels? Is it Pontius Pilate who maintains his position of power by playing power politics and letting the crowd decide the fate of Jesus? Is it Barabbas the mass murderer who is freed from prison, transforming himself into a hero and freedom fighter, in exchange for Jesus' execution? Is it the Rabbis who increase and secure their positions of power by warding off a metamorphosis of their religion into a more passive form?

Or take the example of Prince Siddhartha of India who gave up all the trappings of extreme wealth and privilege voluntarily assuming the role of an ascetic and beggar. This could be described as a powerful act in itself and was not dependent on money. The fact that he attracted many prominent and wealthy individuals to his Sangha would also appear to be an act of personal power or magnetism. But the teaching of no-self could be argued as being a surrender of worldly power and influence for self-gain.

So could it be said that the ultimate act of a truly powerful person is to surrender that power?
I mean, the very search for power could be described as the act of a powerless person.
After all, why did this Indian prince feel all the power available was impotent in some way which he observed?

And why does a Henry Kissinger - the quintessential power broker preach that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac?
edit on 23-6-2012 by Golden Rule because: wrong word inserted



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   
I would have to say that true power is neither knowledge nor money but rather it is state of fearlessness. And in the ultimate sense fearlessness means fearless of death. So called acquisition and cultivation of power is an attempt at creating a hedge against death and destruction.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
The more this thread develops, the more I'm beginning to realize that neither side will be able to overtake the other. On one hand, we have already established that based on the situation , an object in and of itself is the embodiment of leverage which equates to a form of power. Therefore, the statement that "Money Isn't Power" is not correct.

On the other hand, based on the situation , money is useless, as is the sword, as are political connections, as is even knowledge. You see, if some phantom were to lock you inside of a 6' by 6' iron box, welded shut, and left you in the middle of no man's land, you are finished. That's it. It doesn't matter who you are, what you have, who you know, or what you know. You can not buy your way out, you can not think your way out. The only power that exists in this situation, is the box itself. This means that the statement "Money is power" is also incorrect.

So both are right and wrong simultaneously, and ultimately relies on the situation. Citing a God, or a philosophical stance doesn't really fit here, we are talking about practical, "earthly" scenarios are we not? In some situations, a wealthy imbecile can pay to have an un wealthy genius killed. Money>knowledge. The situation can be reversed, and the genius can outsmart the wealthy person, and kill him first. Knowledge>Money.

It doesn't matter how many semantics we all play, there is no absolute, and neither statement will be correct. Its purely situational.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Chance=Power :p
edit on 23-6-2012 by BS_Slayer because: I tlak too much, therefore I edit alot.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by TRGreer

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by TRGreer

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by TRGreer
Money buys people. People influence or buy others on behalf of their benefactors. Oh look its our political system! Technically speaking money is not power in and of itself but often money is used to slant the system in favor of one side or the other. The saddest fact here is that we are the ones that ultimately give money its value. The powers that be tell us this is our currency and it has value and we believe it and use it.
Sending out a positive vibe!


Those people are "bought" long before any money is given to them. And one could say it is the politicians that are the ones exerting their power. A quid pro quo to pay a politician money is very similar to extortion. While everyone runs around thinking politicians are "bought", why are you not considering that they are selling something?


They are selling something! Their benefactors agenda and at this point in time when money allows billionaires to buy a bigger political voice is this not buying power? They majority of Newt's run for presidency was financed by one man who gave over 10 million to his campaign. One man kept a presidential candidate in the race. That's buying power with money.
edit on 22-6-2012 by TRGreer because: Typo


Still not looking at it for what it is. You believe the person in the position of power is being bought off, bought out, but really they are just selling their influence.
edit on 22-6-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)


in·flu·ence
   [in-floo-uhns] Show IPA noun, verb, in·flu·enced, in·flu·enc·ing.
noun
1.
the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others: He used family influence to get the contract.

In order to sell "influence" or anything for that matter you must have a buyer. Which came first the chicken or the egg is what your argument boils down to. Regardless people are buying and selling each other for power and it has completely corrupted governments and societies.


Star for your post. You are exactly right as I also contemplated the chicken and egg analogy as well.

But I believe we were led to believe the one, while the other is correct.

Good eye.



Yeah but I wish I wasn't.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by BS_Slayer
Citing a God, or a philosophical stance doesn't really fit here, we are talking about practical, "earthly" scenarios are we not?


I haven't seen anyone cite a God or philosophical stance as yet.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golden Rule

Originally posted by BS_Slayer
Citing a God, or a philosophical stance doesn't really fit here, we are talking about practical, "earthly" scenarios are we not?


I haven't seen anyone cite a God or philosophical stance as yet.


Hey there Golden..

Perhaps poor choice of wording on my part. What I was referring to was (for example, but not specifically in reply of) Infowarrior about mentioning Law of Attraction as power. I'm not for or against the concept that we may very well manifest every facet of our life, including power, but the OP seemed focused primarily on Money and power in an "earthly" context.

For example, if you're spiritual, religious, or have a specific philosophy in regard to how the universe works, it might be tempting to say: "Jesus is power", or "The ability to manifest through Law of Attraction" is power. In this case, we were discussing whether or not Money equated to an advantage, or "power". I just wanted to try hard to keep the thread in context.

I'm not very good at writing exactly what I mean, and sometimes I'm not even sure what I mean :p I apologize if anything I said was unclear or confusing.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Just a quick comment on your presumption.

You can not say money ≠ power then say power = money.

Last I checked does not matter what side of the = you have stuff it is interchangeable.

ie: x = y is the same as y = x



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by BS_Slayer
 



you wrote:

For example, if you're spiritual, religious, or have a specific philosophy in regard to how the universe works, it might be tempting to say: "Jesus is power", or "The ability to manifest through Law of Attraction" is power. In this case, we were discussing whether or not Money equated to an advantage, or "power". I just wanted to try hard to keep the thread in context.


yes, Slayer, understood. As far as I can see though, the OP began as a proposal with a choice of one of two possibilities: either money is power or money is not power. The OP then went on to say that a truly powerful person does not rely on possession of money for his/her power but rather they are powerful in spite of their wealth. This attracted other proposals such as ''knowledge is (the greater source of) power'' The OP went on to say that a powerful man may even find a way to be released from the confines of a prison and re-claim or re-establish his previous condition of wealth - this being achieved through the influence of his personal power alone. Another initial point the OP made was that it is often observed that many non-wealthy people hold a grudge against wealthy people.

I used the analogy of Jesus of Nazareth whipping the money lenders in the temple grounds to debate this point. i.e. is Jesus jealous of these "powerful" people, is that why he is angry towards them. (Note: I didn't refer to him as Jesus Christ, therefore keeping a historical perspective rather than a religious one)

I also raise the issue of Barabbas being released from prison in exchange for Jesus's crucifixion. i.e. is Barabbas an example of the prescribed man of power who has escaped a death sentence and been released from dire circumstances in order to perhaps become a wealthy and powerful leader?

My reference to Prince Siddhartha is also an historical reference and not a religious argument. Here is an "earthly" man who possessed such "earthly" power and wealth as to make Bill Gates seem like a simple millionaire. Yet, here is recorded a different evolution of the meaning of power.

We cannot be restricted to base definitions of the words money and power if we are to explore what the ultimate meaning of a person of power actually is.

A few posters have already pointed out that money exists only as a value that is commonly agreed upon, aside from that agreement, it has no value. The same sort of reasoning may be applied to the question of power. An intelligent and powerful man such as Prince Siddhartha relinquished what we know as power, because he realized for whatever reasons, that it was not true power. If this act leads into a metaphysical direction then it's study should not be eliminated, if we want to know what ultimate power is.....I think.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
In my world knowledge is power.

2nd



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by cry93
In my world knowledge is power.

2nd


and if you develop Alzheimer's what will happen to that knowledge? You will become powerless.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azdraik
Just a quick comment on your presumption.

You can not say money ≠ power then say power = money.

Last I checked does not matter what side of the = you have stuff it is interchangeable.

ie: x = y is the same as y = x



Philosophy not math.




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golden Rule

Originally posted by cry93
In my world knowledge is power.

2nd


and if you develop Alzheimer's what will happen to that knowledge? You will become powerless.


Yes, that's actually a pretty good example.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Correct but the OP feels he needs to include math notation hence the issue.

I understand what he is trying to say but leave = out of it when trying to push a point



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Golden Rule
 


You deconstructed the OP very well. To be honest the post about Jesus and the Indian Prince, I thought were all rhetorical questions.




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azdraik
reply to post by boncho
 


Correct but the OP feels he needs to include math notation hence the issue.

I understand what he is trying to say but leave = out of it when trying to push a point




No. The saying is "Money equals power."

I didn't invent the saying.

I only made the thread to question a saying that is used too often without completely understanding the issue of power. Which most people on here talk about daily, as the discussion of world politics, and global leaders is pretty popular.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Golden Rule
 


My soul's experience belongs to my soul.

It doesn't belong to this body and dimension.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I completely agree with your reasoning btw.

I do not think money equals power but, it sure does facilitate it. With money you have access to much more influential networks.

As for your examples of lottery winners, that is what happens when you give someone who never had much money a large sum of money, the go on a spending binge, not unlike a starving man given a feast who will eat themselves to death.

It is not true in all cases but you will find more examples showing the prior to be true.
edit on 23-6-2012 by Azdraik because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join