[Vincent Rothstein]

We all know the Tony Montana philosophy: make the money, then you get the power, then you get the women
However on House of Cards, Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) made an interesting comment when speaking about a colleague who went for the money rather than power “Money is the McMansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after 10 years. Power is the old stone house that stands for centuries. I cannot respect someone who doesn’t see the difference.”
so in game, women & lifestyle which, if either, would you say is more important?

[Ovid]

BMW or Mercedes. It's an academic question. If you have power, you will have money. If you make money, you will have power. Wealth has always opened all doors, because it can be traded for anything. This is even more true today. Since the revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, those with money have been able to buy and wield power directly. They no longer belong to an underclass below a money-poor but land-rich aristocracy.

The difference between the McMansion and a stately home (as they're called) in the English countryside is today simply a matter of degree. If you have a million, and some credit cards, you can have a McMansion. If you have 300 million, you might have an estate and a recognized family name. If you make those millions now, as an entrepreneur, you may lack taste and still go for the McMansion. This is a stupid thread.

[OkStudies]

The real question is why do you feel the need to compromise on either one? Why not get both? It seems like the optimal strategy.

[jaakkeli]

(04-06-2013 07:11 AM)OkStudies Wrote:  

The real question is why do you feel the need to compromise on either one? Why not get both? It seems like the optimal strategy.

That is like saying why not go for both basketball and football. You can keep both as a hobby but if you don't focus one thing you'll never go beyond amateur.

In the West money and power are separate tracks and you cannot really pursue both. Rich people in the West can buy influence (you can buy a newspaper) but if they attempt to use the money to buy power it is considered corruption (you can't buy a politician, or you can but if it comes out you risk going to prison and losing it all so in practice people like Bill Gates never risk buying power directly). It's also conversely limited and politicians that attempt to use their power nakedly to legislate themselves some money risk losing their positions in scandal.

I'd rather have the money as in today's West positions of power generally mean losing so much freedom of lifestyle choice that they're not worth it. Every politician needs to pretend that he's a family man with high morals, the man with money can just do whatever he wants.

[Vitriol]

In the U.S. money = game.

I just had this confirmed again last night. If you're doing good financially the rest of it falls into place unless you're working 70 hour weeks to get it and have no time to enjoy it.