Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
charlie cho

Does money really equal power and influence?

7 posts in this topic

Examples and Observations (need not read this part): Gandhi seems to have been successful with this tactic. Many Chinese dynasties were destroyed by the weaker country (usually from Mongolia or the Manchurian tribes). Rome was defeated by the weaker country. The Roman emperor was threatened by Jesus Christ, so he opted to kill him. We could say Jesus had such power and influence with no money, no perceived "status" ... etc. Socrates had himself killed because he had power and influence over the young generation. If Socrates and Jesus had no power, why would any "powerful" politicians would have tried to kill them? Hercules was an orphan. No, he was not the son of Zeus. Yet, just with his incredible ability for war and martial arts, he was able to convince others that he was a "hero" or in modern terms, a "Mafia for Greece". Another example, in the 1600s, Japan was planning to invade China and take over whole of Asia. Korea was such a small country to them they did not care to concern over it. Even though Korea probably had 3/10th of the forces Japan had in the military sect, we succeeded mainly for one, we had a bad ass general, and second (which is the most underappreciated of all) the weather was not optimal for Japan to succeed against our newly designed boats. Japan planned for a siege plan using their new technically designed boat just to get an edge over Korea's strong military boats, but the bad weather conditions made Japan not use the boat, so Korea won countless times. Mongolia tried to invade Japan's island called Tsushima. Of course, Mongolia should have won. They were far superior forces than Japan. But what led them to defeat? Weather conditions! Two hurricanes and flood led the mongolians defeated. It was difficult to say Japan succeeded or Mongolia failed. It was more correct to say, the Heavens succeeded. 

So, my premise is, where do we lie influence and power? Even in military games, just because one country had more talent, more money, more intelligence, more intel, more this and that, did not make them victorious over other countries. Really. Look at all the bigger countries in history, and see how they were destroyed. It was always the least, or the second weakest country that held winner over them. Remember, who took over Rome? Byzantine Empire. They were one of the weakest countries around Rome, but they held the status in the end.

This idea of power really confuses me. It's hard to just frame it so easily as if money = power. It's equal to saying, "the amount of land = power of nations". Totally untrue. 

Edited by charlie cho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, charlie cho said:

This idea of power really confuses me. It's hard to just frame it so easily as if money = power. It's equal to saying, "the amount of land = power of nations". Totally untrue. 

People need to externalize their power in order to live in consensus reality. 

When they externalize their power, they must create abstractions to which they will delegate their power. 

Money is such an abstraction of delegate power.

In other words, money has value because people mutually agree that money has value.  Money has no intrinsic value in itself.

Many people can't see beyond this abstraction and spend their whole lives chasing money as if it's the Source of true Power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JosephKnecht said:

People need to externalize their power in order to live in consensus reality. 

When they externalize their power, they must create abstractions to which they will delegate their power. 

Money is such an abstraction of delegate power.

That's a great metaphor @JosephKnecht . I've been thinking the exact thing. Somehow, I feel as if the amount of land a king possesses, the money a business man makes, the things the thieves steal is a way for all of them to express their sense of power. That does not necessarily mean they do have power and influence. It's a form of expression from them, that's all that it is.

But, there must be some sort of true power that society tend to shun and dismiss, in which even I don't understand and cannot comprehend. 

Edited by charlie cho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, charlie cho said:

. I've been thinking the exact thing. Somehow, I feel as if the amount of land a king possesses, the money a business man makes, the things the thieves steal is a way for all of them to express their sense of power. That does not necessarily mean they do have power and influence. It's a form of expression from them, that's all that it is.

When one day money loses its value, and thus its power, people would start seeking the True Power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0