What's your preference? I'd hate to be famous, give me rich and anonymous.

"...give me rich and anonymous."

I don't even hesitate to answer this.

for the most part wealth and fame are linked.

Being rich but not famous would be the best way to go for me.

j_crazy wrote: for the most part wealth and fame are linked.

Not sure that's the case. I'd bet if you take the top 100 richest people in a decent sized city, most people would only recognize a handful of the names.

^^^^ agreed

typically if you're one of the top 100 richest people in a city like Houston, or LA or NY. there is some fame associated with it.

being the richest person in Marietta Ohio on the other hand, total anonymity.

either way the point is moot because most people would take the money without the hassle of being famous and having your life drug through newsrooms when you cheat on your significant other.

Definitely the money. And no, fame and cash do not go hand in hand.

I work for one of the biggest real estate developers in Columbus, and he drives a beat down Buick and no one knows him from the next guy. Yet he's probably worth half a billion.

I'll take rich and not famous, Alex.

I'd much rather indulge in my secret pleasures without the media.

thedynasty1998 wrote: Definitely the money. And no, fame and cash do not go hand in hand.

I work for one of the biggest real estate developers in Columbus, and he drives a beat down Buick and no one knows him from the next guy. Yet he's probably worth half a billion.

guarantee he has a wiki page.

IMO that equals fame.

j_crazy wrote:
guarantee he has a wiki page.

IMO that equals fame.

I'd argue the opposite. If you have to look someone up, they aren't famous. Just for fun, I looked up the richest people in NYC. I knew roughly half the names, and I'd bet a steak dinner that's better than the average would be (off topic, not being a big Seinfeld fan, I had no idea that Julia Louis-Dreyfus was the child of a billionaire).

"guarantee he has a wiki page. "

LOL don't know about that guy, but the two richest people I met, Matt Bronfman and Bill Goodwin do not have wikipedia pages (although to be fair, Matt's brother Edgar does), these guys are both billionaires and manage to stay out of the public limelight and still do a lot of giving/charitable work. In fact, the University of Virginia business school is now the "William [initial] Goodwin, Jr. grounds, yet I'm guessing most people, even students don't know who he is.

"Give me money, fuck the fame I'm a simple man." -2Pac

I agree with the man.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

j_crazy wrote:
guarantee he has a wiki page.

IMO that equals fame.

I'd argue the opposite. If you have to look someone up, they aren't famous. Just for fun, I looked up the richest people in NYC. I knew roughly half the names, and I'd bet a steak dinner that's better than the average would be (off topic, not being a big Seinfeld fan, I had no idea that Julia Louis-Dreyfus was the child of a billionaire).

IMO everyone doesn't have to know you for you to be famous. but if enough people know about you that anyone can look you up and find out tons about you (mainly how you came about being rich) that's fame.


for example I googled matt bronfman and got 105,000 hits in .55 seconds. I googled my name and got 90,000 hits in .65 seconds (none of which are about me).

I'm not trying to pick a fight, just trying to persuade you to think like me . Agree to disagree I guess.

You gotta know who they are to be able to internet search them.

A guy who lives 1 1/2 miles from me just sold his small business two years ago for $46 million. The only reason I know is because we transferred his pension plan to a new custodian. You wouldn't know who lived there if you didn't know someone he knew.

He's weathy. He isn't famous.

I said both. I want to make it rain all night long