Complicated Relationship Between Money and Power

Since the time when cavemen inhabited the earth, it has become human nature to want more than what one has. Before the concept of wealth was developed, humans fulfilled their needs by trading or bartering with others based on items that they needed to survive. As mankind has advanced, humans have expanded into desiring nonessential things. Money has become a medium for exchange and a payment for work, and currency is now fundamental to most life on earth. Only three percent of Americans supply their own food through farming or hunting, which reflects that a massive ninety-seven percent of American’s use money every day to purchase food.1 The amount of money one possesses culturally determines their success in life. Humans who have wealth, also have influence, because they have what people desire and are able to live the lifestyle that they want. As people believe that they need more wealth, they become slaves to money. The humans who possess wealth gain influence over money worshippers and as a result, are the most powerful in society.

The power of a country has always been grounded in its economic strength. International powers can afford to finance aggressive foreign policies with strong militaries. For example, The United States was first considered the supreme financial and world power when it replaced Great Britain during the First World War. After the devastation of the Second World War, the United States became virtually the only financial power. Being able to afford a strong military meant that the United States benefited financially from the First and Second World War and became allies with the increasingly dependent United Kingdom. During World War One, the United States used their financial leverage over Europe. President Woodrow Wilson wanted the European Countries to agree to his peace plans, described in the famous Fourteen Points. Wilson said to his advisor Colonel Edward House that at the peace conference “we can bring the Allies to our way of thinking, because they will be financially in our hands”. After World War One, it became apparent that for the time being, the dollar should replace the pound as the world standard of value and New York should replace London as the world’s financial center.

Within the international powers lies the wealthy and elite who keep their power in society through the wealth they hold. This means politicians in democratic nations who hope to sway the election by using money to advertise and persuade. There is a fundamental correlation between those candidates who spend the most money and the candidate that wins the election. That being said, when candidates obtain large amounts of money, it is usually because they are seen as either the best candidate or the one most likely to win. Money can sway an election to favor a certain candidate especially if the candidate starts campaigning as a complete unknown. In this case, advertisements can inform voters who the candidate is and what he stands for. Creative or inspiring advertisements that often times cost more money can also have a larger impact on outcomes. For example, the 1984 Ronald Reagan presidential campaign commercial referred to as, “Prouder, Stronger, Better” or “It’s morning again in America”. The message of Reagan’s advertisement is simple, patriotic, and encouraging. The money spent to fund this television advertisement was well spent, seeing that it’s often called one of the most effective campaign advertisements ever. Although, it does not seem impartial that money can have such an effect on the democratic process.

In a broad sense I believe that personal money is too closely connected to power, but the wealth of a country rightly correlates to that countries power in the world. Personal wealth should be something to strive for but once someone earns wealth, it should not be misused. Yet having international powers is important to global relations. Wealthy countries have a duty to aid those in need and help to keep peace throughout the world.