Wow, ridiculously lopsided so far.
I’m curious to hear the reasons behind those “famous” votes (yes, all three you).
Rich and anonymous. While some have argued that fame brings riches, it can work the other way too – look at Warren Buffet or Bill Gates.
You don’t need fame to be influential in politics or charity if you have money. And you won’t have people always hitting you up for money (except politicians and charities :))
I said rich and famous because I think if you want to be rich only, you’re asking to have your cake and eat it too. It’s a cop-out, easy answer along the lines of, I want to be rich but don’t want to do any hard work, so I’m going to play the lottery and then retreat into my golden hermit kingdom, where nobody will bother me and my piles of money.
The thing is, I think there is a cost to being rich, including lazy relatives who feel entitled to your money. I’m more on the wavelength of, let’s just go into all this fabulous wealth knowing exactly what the toll is.
Besides, if I were to be very wealthy, I think there’s a lot to be accomplished through also having fame that would not be achievable through money alone. For example, charitable causes. Let’s say Bono and some big muckety-muck at Goldman Sachs are worth the same amount of money: I think Bono does a lot better for the world for using his celebrity to fight AIDS. The muckety-muck may have his swanky charity balls or whathaveyou, but if I had to choose between the two roles, I’d cast my lot with Bono.
That is, so long as the reason for my fame isn’t along the lines of John Wayne Bobbitt.
Pop culture fame would be hell for me. I’m a very private person, and I really don’t want anybody knowing (or caring about) the details of my life, actions, friendships, etc. except my friends and family (and even then I get nervous if they care too much unless it’s my spouse).
I wouldn’t mind being a famous author–even a really famous author, like Stephen King. But other than that, no thanks. I’ll take anonymous riches over fame and riches.
Rich and anonymous is working out pretty well for me so far.
I’ll take both.
Wealth doesn’t get you sex, which for me is one of the top-level goals of life. Fame certainly gets you that. If I walk into a party or bar with a famous face, I’m instantly a hit with the ladies. If I walk into a party or bar with a million bucks in the bank, it’s not so instant.
Then again, people often want to be the opposite of themselves. I have enough money that I never have to worry about it but I can hardly get laid. If those were opposite, perhaps my answer would be as well.
Wealth? Yeah, I’ll take it. Fame? No thanks! I have zero desire to live my life in a fish bowl! Just my two cents (which I’ll increase to $200.00 once I’m rich. . .)
There is an old Greek saying:
“Many have come to hate money, but no one has come to hate glory”
Despite some exceptions, I think it holds.
IOW, put me down for rich & famous.
ETA: Maybe the above saying was more accurate in the days before paparazzi invaded every moment of famous peoples’ lives. But still, there are a lot of famous people today who don’t get hounded daily by photographers and journalists. Another data point: There is a singer who is very famous in England, Robbie Williams, who said in an article that he hates coming to the US because he doesn’t like not being recognized while walking down the street. i.e. as much as famous people bitch about it, most love being recognized
Sure wealth gets you sex, even without paying for hookers. Wear a $15,000 tailored suit with the right shoes and watch, driving the right car, and a certain type of woman will be all over you.
And by “certain type of woman” I do NOT mean slutty. I mean like, say Cordelia Chase, from Angel; she would recognize the cut of the suit and make of the shoes and draw the correct conclusions. (She might not get the car, but her platonic life partner would have told her.)
I never cared about fame. Money buys freedom from many things.
It very much depends, for me, on the level of wealth and the level of fame. But I actually think I would prefer fame, of a certain sort (perhaps better called “acclaim” or “legacy” or something?), to extraordinary wealth. It doesn’t have to be entertainment-world celebrity stuff, but I’d like to accomplish something notable and reap the rewards of that notability. I’d hate to just be some anonymous forgotten nobody after I die, you know?
Another vote for money but no fame. I’m a private person by nature. If I got both I’d just end up a recluse to avoid being mobbed.
What is the benefit of being famous? Once you’re already rich, what is fame’s additional value? Being rubbernecked by assholes all day? No thanks.
Depends on what I’d be famous for. If it’s for the typical sports/movies/Paris Hilton schtick then meh, but if I did something awesome (Neil Armstrong, Fritz Maytag, Cecil Adams) then I’d be more into it.
I can barely deal with jerks in the supermarket coming up to me with, “Hey, don’t I know you from somewhere?” No, ass, you do not. What if they actually did? I’d hide in my mansion everyday and have my assistants bring me only what I need for sustenance (bourbon and pizza).
Any sort of fame would be a living hell for me! Wouldn’t say no to effortless riches, though (too lazy to pursue making any kind of money now).
Rich. Just rich. Ooooohhhh, the *travel!! *No way I would have that messed up by fame.
I would have been very surprised if this board polled as anything but a blowout for rich, no fame.
No fame please. I hate having a fuss made over me and really don’t care for people that much anyway. (well, you know the general people…not all of you of course) 
I don’t even want to be rich. I wouldn’t mind being a little more financially secure but the thought of being rich scares me.