[kahljorn]

"Yes, politicians get paid to do their jobs, and yes, most of what the government does day to day is shuffling money around. You have to ask yourself though: Why do they do what they do? What is their motivation. The answer is clearly not involving the accumulation of wealth. "

I didn't necessarily say the accumulation of wealth. I said that Governmental power is limited by how much money is around. Governmental power is limited by the money it has, and when we have more money we have more power. I was essentially saying that Governmental power is a direct result of money. In an ECONOMICAL way, this makes sense(this is a thread about the economy, right?). It also makes sense in alot of other ways.

"would you set out to reach it by spending trillions of dollars on social programs?"

Hm, well, I have to say this is a decent point. However, it's pretty simple to see through. If it didn't invest in social programs people would be pissed and possibly rebel. It seems to me if I was trying to accumulate wealth/power I would strive to maintain a balance between getting alot of money and keeping people from getting too pissed off. That much seems obvious; because there's a demand for it.
If the government was really interesting in spending "Trillions of dollars on social programs" they could divide the trillion dollars by the amount of poor people in the world and give them all a shitload of money so they wouldn't be poor and tell them not to act like dicks or they won't get anymore.
Anyway, I don't really see how that argues my point, I just wanted to throw that in there for no reason ;(
Also, I never said that Government didn't invest in social programs.

"If you have 10 million dollars and I have but ten cents, you have no inherent power over me until you decide to buy some power with your money... Just as you have no cattle until you BUY some with your money. "

Um, okay. I have the ability to buy cattle, but you don't. I also have the ability to buy anything else i want, while you don't. I can do anything with my money, while you'd be lucky to afford a gumball. Big difference in power, because you have the power to do very little while I have the power to do alot. Having options is a part of having power. Just like having POWER OVER A PERSON doesn't necessarily involve you stabbing them with knives or forcing them to do your laundry, but just in the fact that if you wanted to, you could.

"Money may offer you advantages over those that have less of it, but not if it's just sitting in the bank doing nothing."

If it's just sitting in the bank doing nothing it's usually gaining interest. Having more advantages is having more power.

"What you see as a cash engine is a motor that runs on money but produces power."

Right, but it still needs money to produce power. Are you not making the distinction? If the government doesn't have money it doesn't have power. If the business' purpose is to create money, and the government's purpose is to create power from that money the seperation of State and Business has been ruined. Hence why it undermines your philosophy.

"That kinetic force was your potential power. "

And it's all based on money, further supporting my theory.

"One obvious example is to support the poor."

There's poor people in america? Because I thought this thread was about how there's no poor people in america, it's a myth, remember? Welp, about time to wrap this up!