|
I was just looking at the richest people in the world, Bill Gates at #1.
But then I noticed Bill Gates rates "only" 6th on the most powerful people in the world.
The numbers 1 to 5 on that list are Poetin, Merkel, Obama, the pope, and Xi Jinping.
None of them really very rich people.
So where would you rather be, #1 on the list of richest people or #1 on the list of most powerful people?
Notice that "none" is not an option 
Stress comes with both money and power, but I'm not world changer, so I'd take the money.
The only reason I'd like to be on the powerful list is so I can do my evil laugh and people would actually be afraid 
|
|
|
|
|
Rich and unknown. The power I have here on CP is already a considerable responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, I've always wanted to be rich and anonymous. Being famous too would just be a pain in the butt.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that the parameters of powerful in that listing need adjusting. In a recent documentary shown here Obama, for example, complains bitterly about being President of the United States and in reality able to do nothing about the things that concern him most. The Pope has no real power at all (for many of the same reasons and a lot of others unique to being a religious leader).
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
You should complain to Forbes about it.
If the pope says something many people will blindly follow, that's what power is about, right?
So who is powerful according to you?
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: If the pope says something many people will blindly follow
That would be a wildly inaccurate representation both now and at any time in the Church's history. In any case, the Pope clearly is not free to say, do or command anything he wants. It is apparent that the present one would wish to be far more reforming than he is currently allowed to be, for example.
Real power lies in getting what you want, when you want it, without let or hindrance of any kind. It is almost impossible to achieve without extreme wealth.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
I see your point, fair enough.
However if Bill Gates wanted to do something with his massive wealth and Obama disagrees Obama could make whatever Bill was planning illegal (or at least try to). It happened before that law makers prevented individuals or companies from doing things they did not agree to.
So what about Kim Jong-un? As far as I know he can do anything he wants as long as it stays in North Korea (and even a little outside).
|
|
|
|
|
The belief that making things illegal stops them from happening has a long and noble tradition of being utterly false! It does nothing but provide a means of punishing people after the fact, if you catch them and can prove to the satisfaction of a jury that they done it. No law ever prevents crime - indeed it mostly increases it simply by criminalising more acts!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Obama does NOT have the power to make anything illegal. That is exclusively the power of the Judicial branch. He has some influence on that realm via nominating individuals for the Supreme and District courts, but those all have to be approved by the Senate, and the President has no direct influence on any judicial decisions made.
There are checks and balances in every branch, and at all levels of the governments specifically to prevent any one individual from having too much power, including the President.
|
|
|
|
|
jRaskell1 wrote: Obama does NOT have the power to make anything illegal. That is exclusively the power of the Judicial branch.
Not directly, no (and it's actually the legislative branch; judicial only enforces laws (or overturns them if found unconstitutional.)) However the president has an enormous amount of "pull" with congress, and assuming the bill he wants passed isn't terribly insane (like say, legally mandating sex with chickens,) then it's going to be put up to vote.
Contrast this with an ordinary citizen's ability to get one of those old shrivs to put a bill up for vote, and I'd say the president has at least 100 times greater chance of getting a bill voted into law.
That sounds pretty powerful to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Power means responsibility for many people and atomar weapons, so being rich should be easier. 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Do you believe in selecting the easy, because it is easy, or do you pick the difficult because it is difficult? Your response will tell me a lot about you. 
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
modified 26-Mar-16 20:57pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll go for item 2: Happy
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
If the question is rich or powerful then item 2 is actually powerful 
Unless you're a programmer and start at 0 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Unless you're a programmer and start at 0
I'm afraid that the only possible reply to this is: "Well, Duh!"
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Rich.
I'd buy an island for me and my wife and get sufficient monkey butlers.
And line the beach with 100 watt plexi stacks with a Les Paul to ward off would be pirates.
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Anders wrote: monkey butlers
Are we talking actual monkeys? That would be awesome!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Money can buy power.
Power usually wastes money on trying to maintain itself, until there's neither left (the US economy is a good example.)
So, I'd go for money, but I wouldn't use it to buy power!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Meh, what would I do with more money?
OTOH, I don't want power either, at least not in the overt sense. Id' rather be the guy behind the scenes.
Kind of like Dick Cheney, only without the evil.
|
|
|
|
|
Of what earthly use is power, if you don't abuse it? :evil grin:
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Rich and use my money to hide the #1 part. Then I would buy companies and fire all the kinds of people who create scope creep and add use less features.
|
|
|
|
|
Nukes; nukes; nukes; prayer; nukes; $.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Easter TV Picks: Our Queen at 90 featuring Kate Middleton, The Night Manager, Maigret and more
And I thought that it would be a little dull!
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Yesterday morning I had a frantic text from my brother-in-law to please call regarding a computer problem. I called and was informed that his wife's computer had magically upgraded to Win10 without user action or consent. (doubtful, but that her story and she's sticking to it) She was pissed that her IE favs were gone. Once I explained the difference between Edge and IE everything was good...or so it seemed.
Later in the day, he calls me back to tell me that everything works except that she can't send email using Outlook. I get connected and find that she is running Outlook 2000 which apparently has a problem with the windows address book and is incompatible with Win10. Uninstall office 2K and install office 365. (they already had unused subs) 45 minutes later and the install is done. I start setting up the new Outlook account and it refuses to take the password she swears hasn't changed in over 10 years. A quick check through webmail confirms that the password is wrong. 45 minutes later after resetting the password, the account connection shows as working. Try to send a test email and get a nice error message of 'an object could not be found'!  Fine, move to plan C...setup the Win10 Mail app and it works. Unfortunately, she doesn't like the new mail app, so I will have to eventually fix the Outlook 2016 error. I think it's probably a profile thing, but that's for another day. 2 hours of family IT support was enough for one day!
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
