Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes
No so hard. Mother Teresa, the Dali Lama. Barack Obama (who is personally wealthy, but nowhere near wealthy enough to maintain the lifestyle or influence of US President, nor did his personal wealth jump from the election). On the flip side, Warren Buffet (who until recently had very little Status, perhaps a Reputation among investors; even now, it might just be positive rep for tax advocates). Some middle class families own vacation homes; others do not, without also differing by a point of Status.
|
Indeed, the one place you can find it easy to separate Wealth and Status today is when Status-granting Rank intervenes.
...Meanwhile I'd love to see your source on Warren Buffet lacking Status. He doesn't have Rank, but I really doubt he's not getting imputed Status from his very substantial Wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes
I agree there's correlation, but there's not an absolute match between the lifestyle that you live, your social influence, and your income, compared to say, feudal England. The Windsors are wealthy, yes -- but William the Conqueror owned literally everything in England before he started handing bits out. The Windsors are a long way from that kind of wealth.
|
This has what to do with modern society? (Also, I'd dispute the Wealth value of 'owning' 11th century England.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaraxes
If there are two separate Advantages at all, then there has to be some meaning for mismatched values of Status and Wealth, with either higher. Otherwise, it's just one Advantage.
|
Of course there are two separate advantages. I said difficult to disentangle in modern societies, not indistinguishable.