[worldwidetraveler]

(02-23-2014 03:33 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

(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 too 1% of the world. You seem to be skewing the question in your favor.

Nope, you have tunnel vision. I don't have a "favor" and if you look I never gave an answer. This question should be answered based on the 1% of wealth where you live not world average. Trying to make it about 440k is more about you skewing than I.

[Comte De St. Germain]

Honestly this argument is getting really annoying as there are so many assumptions with the question. We need to be more specific about the nature of the question. The topic is too broad.

[Hispanic_Reasoning]

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

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.

now, if you're not an idiot, you can use wealth to build more wealth or as you said, to have muscle behind you (your own private army like Julius Caesar had). and think about it for a second. what do you need in order to sustain a private army? resources/wealth. without resources/wealth, you don't have the muscle to gain power.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(02-23-2014 03:36 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 03:33 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

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

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

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

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 too 1% of the world. You seem to be skewing the question in your favor.

Nope, you have tunnel vision. I don't have a "favor" and if you look I never gave an answer. This question should be answered based on the 1% of wealth where you live not world average. Trying to make it about 440k is more about you skewing than I.

This makes the entire premise annoying then because we won't find any common ground. There will be no standard and the entire argument we've been building up is pointless. Stop using straw man arguments.

[worldwidetraveler]

[Comte De St. Germain]

(02-23-2014 03:38 PM)Hispanic_Reasoning Wrote:  

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

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.

now, if you're not an idiot, you can use wealth to build more wealth or as you said, to have muscle behind you (your own private army like Julius Caesar had). and think about it for a second. what do you need in order to sustain a private army? resources/wealth. without resources/wealth, you don't have the muscle to gain power.

But at the same time they would betray you at the slightest inconvenience or for better pay. Loyalty needs to be based less on on money than on belief in your leader. If you have a gal or an idea it's much easier to keep them in line rather than offering more and more money. At one point you won't have enough money to keep them happy anymore that is if they listen to you at all when you're trying to keep them in line.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(02-23-2014 03:40 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Basing it on area would just subdivide this thread into sections for each country. No one would be technically able to argue as each country would have its own 1%. Why should we base it on area? It would be counterproductive to the argument completely.

[WestCoast]

(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.

Yeppppppppppp!

Good looks doesn't mean shit compared to dough boys. I would take $440K over being the 35 millionth best looking man in the world. Shit I don't even know who the 700th best looking guy is in the world but I don't see very many attractive men worth more than even $500K. Pass.

I will actually guarantee you the 35millionth most attractive man in the world on a global scale is a broke mother fucker!

There are only 10M millionaires globally! (0.15%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire

Give me $440K I wait 7 years I am a millionaire and I am in the top 0.15% make it rain get on dat night train!

[Comte De St. Germain]

Then again being the 35 millionth best looking man would give me an ego boost that I'm better than a couple billion people. This argument is getting tense at this point. I don't hate any of you guys. I just have my own warped/subjective view on this lets call it a day and grab drinks some time. It was fun arguing ^_^.

[WestCoast]

^ I will wager you already are in the top 1% looks wise on a global scale. You basically get to wipe out all 3rdworld country populations due to malnutrition etc. So have fun flexing in the mirror!

[Comte De St. Germain]

(02-23-2014 03:50 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

^ I will wager you already are in the top 1% looks wise on a global scale. You basically get to wipe out all 3rdworld country populations due to malnutrition etc. So have fun flexing in the mirror!

Now that's gold. Not gonna lie I busted out laughing.

[Hispanic_Reasoning]

(02-23-2014 03:41 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

But at the same time they would betray you at the slightest inconvenience or for better pay. Loyalty needs to be based less on on money than on belief in your leader. If you have a gal or an idea it's much easier to keep them in line rather than offering more and more money. At one point you won't have enough money to keep them happy anymore that is if they listen to you at all when you're trying to keep them in line.

the underlined part, I agree with you on that. if i was to marry a girl (and if I was a doughboy), I would make sure she wouldn't do it just because of my doughboy status. it's why golddigger girls usually get fucked over; doughmen usually use them for sex and throw them away like toilet paper. it's why most anglosphere girls aren't happy; most of them are golddigging bitches who think they deserve a man from the top 1% in wealth when they don't even deserve a dude with average wealth and top game/skills.

and man, this fucking question needs to be clarified more. we are going in circles with this debate.

[Comte De St. Germain]

I meant to say goal not gal. My bad. Though yes girls are better kept in line than paid for.

[Hispanic_Reasoning]

(02-23-2014 03:55 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

Though yes girls are better kept in line than paid for.

this is what I tell other men around me. what's the response I get? I'm a chauvanist asshole. and yes, even if you're wealthy like god, eventually that money will run out and the bitch will move on to the next mogul she can't hook up with. it's why i said wealth+game+confidence (even if I am of average looks)=killer.

as I said before, any man of average looks can get a girl of above average looks or character if they put the work in. the same applies to women. it's why i have no sympathies for men who bitch they can't get a broad.

[Comte De St. Germain]

I think what pisses me off more than just complaining is that friend zone/nice guy garbage. They see their girls getting fucked by "assholes", but they themselves don't want to do that and instead complain. As they say "The definition of insanity is doing the same fucking thing expecting different results."

[Comte De St. Germain]

Pretty much American male logic explained. Doing the same exact thing, failing, and complaining.

[Hispanic_Reasoning]

(02-23-2014 04:02 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

I think what pisses me off more than just complaining is that friend zone/nice guy garbage. They see their girls getting fucked by "assholes", but they themselves don't want to do that and instead complain. As they say "The definition of insanity is doing the same fucking thing expecting different results."

I grew up with those type of idiots. I would constantly hear them and for a while, I sympathized with them since back then, I wasn't getting shit either. but once I hit college, I started seeing things differently and I told those idiots fuck off. in fact, now, I get a bit uneasy when a girl calls me a "nice guy." Whenever I think of "nice guy," I always remind myself of the pitiful losers I grew up with. but thankfully, it's more so the non-anglo girls who call me that and when they do, they usually mean I am a cool guy who they like talking to/hanging out with.

[Comte De St. Germain]

Kind of glad I haven't been referred too as something like that for a while now unless they were girls whom I was using to get at there friends, but ya they are more common then ever. These days you are either like them or you are pulling. There is rarely an in between.

[Hotwheels]

(02-23-2014 04:00 PM)Hispanic_Reasoning Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 03:55 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

Though yes girls are better kept in line than paid for.

this is what I tell other men around me. what's the response I get? I'm a chauvanist asshole. and yes, even if you're wealthy like god, eventually that money will run out and the bitch will move on to the next mogul she can't hook up with. it's why i said wealth+game+confidence (even if I am of average looks)=killer.

Why do guys keep saying the money will run out?

Guess there is little knowledge of money management around here.

[WestCoast]

^ everyone on RVF has a heavy coke addiction.

[worldwidetraveler]

(02-23-2014 03:44 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

Yeppppppppppp!

Good looks doesn't mean shit compared to dough boys. I would take $440K over being the 35 millionth best looking man in the world. Shit I don't even know who the 700th best looking guy is in the world but I don't see very many attractive men worth more than even $500K. Pass.

I will actually guarantee you the 35millionth most attractive man in the world on a global scale is a broke mother fucker!

There are only 10M millionaires globally! (0.15%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millionaire

Give me $440K I wait 7 years I am a millionaire and I am in the top 0.15% make it rain get on dat night train!

Would you rather leverage a big bank roll into more money or leverage your time into cash?

Me, I rather leverage the bank roll and use my spare time to make more money or do something else, like playing the banjo.

[Comte De St. Germain]

The vast majority of people don't know how to manage money well myself included. I'm just cutting out a part of the money I earn to save rather than investing it if increasing it. Then again I'm a student so what can I say.

[WestCoast]

@wwt woah there you're talking over people. You mean trading time for money is a bad idea? Now you're just talkin crazy.

If you can't get rich with $400K in the bank you're doing something terribly wrong. $8M? You'd have to be full retard.

Money = momentum. Anyone with a good bankroll knows this. If your assets are spitting out even $1-2K a month you have some mo. You're rolling more money into more money into more money.

Poor people use money to spend rich people use money to breed.

Post above me is most interesting, I will bet $10,000 the people choosing to be rich on average make more money than the people choosing looks.

[Hispanic_Reasoning]

(02-23-2014 04:17 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 04:00 PM)Hispanic_Reasoning Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 03:55 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

Though yes girls are better kept in line than paid for.

this is what I tell other men around me. what's the response I get? I'm a chauvanist asshole. and yes, even if you're wealthy like god, eventually that money will run out and the bitch will move on to the next mogul she can't hook up with. it's why i said wealth+game+confidence (even if I am of average looks)=killer.

Why do guys keep saying the money will run out?

Guess there is little knowledge of money management around here.

most people don't know how to manage money. perfect example: people who win the lotto; most people who win the lotto end up being worse than before.

[Hispanic_Reasoning]

(02-23-2014 04:20 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

Poor people use money to spend rich people use money to breed.

^that. I think of a million ways to breed money with $400k. Most people people I know can think of a million ways to spend money to try to "look rich" and not be.