Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, the common thread seems to be power. SF is more economic power whereas DC is more political power. I think Obama raised more money in Manhattan and San Francisco than anywhere else. So that sort of tells us where the players are.
Very true.
Power is prestige.
The BRICS have created their own bank (very recently) because they are fed up with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank wielding their power and authority across the world landscape. The BRICS (Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa) want their own power and influence over the world market. They *want* to be the most prestigious name on the world market.
Quote:
The five countries that make up the Brics account for nearly half of the world’s population, and now they officially have their own bank.
At their annual summit last week, leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa said that their New Development Bank is getting ready to lend after years of haggling. Each country will have an equal vote in the infrastructure projects that the institution finances. The bank, with a $100 billion lending pool to start, might never be a major rival to the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank. But plans for intercountry cooperation on projects, combined with the fast ascent of the Beijing-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank–it has 57 founding members, including many developed countries–underscores a financial and geopolitical shift away from the lending hegemony of Europe and the U.S.
It remains to be seen how representatives of the five emerging economies share power and choose projects. China and India are relatively healthy economically, but have a long list of technology, energy, and other infrastructure needs. Brazil, Russia, and South Africa are slogging through the bottom of a bad commodities cycle, and have their own project lists. It took a lot of debate before the Brics decided that China, with its hefty reserves, wouldn’t control the reins. But the bank is based in that country, which will contribute $41 billion to the lending pool. Brazil, India, and Russia will each provide $18 billion and South Africa, $5 billion.
It is an investment of time and money because prestige is something everyone wants. It is status, it is renown, it is respected. This holds true, even for multi-national organizations such as BRICS too. Prestige is power, power is money. If you *have* money, you can obtain power, with that power you can develop prestige that in-turn people will recognize and revere.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,177,862 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Why do you think England is regarded as being more prestigious than Nigeria?
I see where you're going with this (at least I think I do), but I'm not sure it all boils down to rich, white guys define prestige/rule the world. One could effectively argue Japan as more prestigious than England, if we're going down that route; forgive me if we're not.
You are right about power, though. Prestige is inherently tied to power. That's a goof on my part. I'm just annoyed that power/prestige automatically equates to money to most posters here. Social power is often NOT tied to wealth.
I see where you're going with this (at least I think I do), but I'm not sure it all boils down to rich, white guys define prestige/rule the world. One could effectively argue Japan as more prestigious than England, if we're going down that route; forgive me if we're not.
You are right about power, though. Prestige is inherently tied to power. That's a goof on my part. I'm just annoyed that power/prestige automatically equates to money to most posters here. Social power is often NOT tied to wealth.
Eyeroll. That poster has some chip on his shoulder, as he brings that subject into everything. China is more prestigious than Sweden.
In any case, there is no such thing as "social power". Money rules the world lol. Even the "prestigious" politicians are bought & sold by corporate interests. America worships money (aka power) and as long as you have tons of it, you're generally prestigious in the eyes of the typical person. Perhaps it's different in England, but certainly not here.
People in places like Washington live in a bubble, are many times politicos who are fascinated and think highly of their politicians, thus have a grandiose sense of self.
There's a difference between asking someone whether they have a favorable view of Congress and whether they consider being a member of Congress to be a prestigious thing. A lot of people hate President Obama but they might not necessarily think less of the Office.
I'm just annoyed that power/prestige automatically equates to money to most posters here.
Money is important. We actually classify countries off their productivity (per person) into essentially First World (or now known as "High Income World") and Third World (or now known as "Developing World" and/or "Low-Income World").
I make this point often but some of the people on this forum literally don't get the picture. When you have more money (as a country, state, or city), you have more leverage and authority, when you have that then you have more power. Say for instance that City A has a larger GDP AND larger Total Personal Income than City B. Essentially if the people, corporations, and powers in City A can get together and say "we have the money to take over and/or buy City B, lets do it to demonstrate our power, to make an example of somewhere, because we can do that." They can do that because they have the necessary purchasing power to do so and if they do, people in City B now work for the interests of City A.
That is a fact. That is why I find it odd when people attempt to put down GDP and then go on to list things that are components within GDP (like individual industries).
Prostitutes on street corners will do anything you ask them, anything, in some countries that "anything" literally does mean anything you ask them, to make a quick buck. They wh-re and sell themselves off for money and work under the powers of those that have it. It is telling psychology of how the marketplace works in general. Want a real life example of this? North Korea will do anything China asks of it because China is the checkbook that feeds North Korea.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 08-26-2015 at 04:13 PM..
There's a difference between asking someone whether they have a favorable view of Congress and whether they consider being a member of Congress to be a prestigious thing. A lot of people hate President Obama but they might not necessarily think less of the Office.
As I said, the President is the only exception. 80% of Americans do not vote in midterm elections, and couldn't name more than 5 members of congress if you held a gun to their heads.
You're overestimating the amount of thought the typical person gives politicians, because presumably, you're into politics. The ones that do generally dislike politicians.
If neighbor A lives next door to senator Olympia Snowe on the right and Michael Bloomberg to the left, who do you think neighbor A would feel more honored to live next door to? Which one would they brag about most?
I see where you're going with this (at least I think I do), but I'm not sure it all boils down to rich, white guys define prestige/rule the world. One could effectively argue Japan as more prestigious than England, if we're going down that route; forgive me if we're not.
I don't think that's right either, particularly considering how Westernized Japan has become.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder
You are right about power, though. Prestige is inherently tied to power. That's a goof on my part. I'm just annoyed that power/prestige automatically equates to money to most posters here. Social power is often NOT tied to wealth.
I'm not in that camp though I believe wealth can equal power.
The realest quote about power comes from Varys in Game of Thrones.
As I said, the President is generally an exception. They're so well known. 80% of Americans do not vote in midterm elections, and couldn't name more than 5 members of congress if you held a gun to their heads.
99% of Americans also couldn't name a federal judge at gunpoint. Or the the Chief of Surgery at Johns Hopkins. That doesn't mean they don't think those jobs are prestigious.
So for the record, you don't think being Chief of Surgery at Johns Hopkins is a prestigious position?
99% of Americans also couldn't name a federal judge at gunpoint. Or the the Chief of Surgery at Johns Hopkins. That doesn't mean they don't think those jobs are prestigious.
So for the record, you don't think being Chief of Surgery at Johns Hopkins is a prestigious position?
Of course he's prestigious but he's not as prestigious than Warren Buffett.
Money rules all.
Also, people look up to surgeons --no one looks up to congress. People hate congress and hate politicians in general. There are more talented, elite people looking to become surgeons, or self-made moguls than there are going into politics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
