Can national leaders be personally poor? (no spam)

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun May 13, 2007 6:11 pm

Think of your own country, and your national leaders, then think hard before you speak. Take France: Ségolène Royal is worth about a $1 million, not bad, by any means, but Sarkozy, soon to be president, is worth around $5 million. Of course, these figures aren't surprising. There's hardly a national leader who isn't at least a millionaire. Some have much more. That bane of Massachusetts voters, former governor Mitt Romney, now running for the Republican nomination for US president, has declared a net worth of between $190 million and $250 million. With figures like these, politicians who try to paint themselves as bieng "of the people" are usually heckled for their wealth.

Yet one of the ways they get their power is by forming networks with other wealthy businesspeople, and it helps them get elected. It also means they speak the same language and share common interests--and views--with the wealthy people they find leading other nations. Is there any way to realistically break out of this cycle, which seems to have existed with minor exceptions since history began being recorded?

DarthMarth · Post by **DarthMarth** » Sun May 13, 2007 6:17 pm

no, not practically anyways. They are leaders because they gained power, they gained power with money. It's like asking if a bird could fly without wings.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Sun May 13, 2007 7:37 pm

The Cycle of Political Life:

Be noble-born (in Texas if you are lucky) -->skull-n-bones education (the best money can buy) --> private business (you are the boss, in case you wonder) --> get rich (preferably filthy rich) or if you have a decent family, get broke (does not really matter, somebody would pay) --> crave power because you have everything else --> career of People Servant is the best money can buy (and you always buy the best) --> pull strings (you still have your noble family, right?) --> promise the populace Paradise on Earth if elected (they will buy it, everybody wants to buy the best, so keep promising the best) --> get elected (make sure you have the best accomplices money can buy... Oh, you know that by now, don't you) --> ruin everything you can --> blame it on your political opponents (Fox News will help, don't you worry) --> get reelected --> retire in disgrace but who cares? --> have somebody write your memoirs (the best money can buy, no question here) --> help your family members to be elected (family is the most important thing, almost as important as money) --> noble-die (in Texas if you are still lucky).

Edit: It is not spam, it is Truth.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Sun May 13, 2007 11:29 pm

Former Thai Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai...

Now, this is one bloke I deeply respect... it's just sad that he didn't have that much political clout in the long run.

[url="http://www.answers.com/topic/chuan-leekpai"]Chuan Leekpai.[/url]

To answer your question, fable, here is something of note:

[quote="] Though he has a common-law wife and son"]

He may be not be dirt poor, but he is definitely not even considered a rich person.

As for the Philippines, we once had one in [url="http://www.bookrags.com/biography/ramon-magsaysay/"]Ramon Magsaysay[/url].

Since then, the next ones came from the upper class.

AmpaSand · Post by **AmpaSand** » Sun May 13, 2007 11:38 pm

NZ's Leaders are not that rich... But yes in developed countries it is very hard to be a leader with out assets

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Sun May 13, 2007 11:44 pm

AmpaSand wrote:NZ's Leaders are not that rich... But yes in developed countries it is very hard to be a leader with out assets

Which made me think: Is it really harder for not rich individuals to be head of state in developed countries than in developing countries?

I would tend to think that developed countries would be more into meritocracy (giving credit to competent and abled people to do their job) than for us in developing countries where people with money have more power and influence.

*shrugs*

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Mon May 14, 2007 12:25 am

Since the prime minister job is quite well paid it's not possible to be a dirt poor leader in Sweden.

It's hard for me to check the wealth of the prime ministers at the time they take power without spending a day on the phone, but many definitely have humble backgrounds. If I check the income of currently living prime ministers it's averaged 300 000 € yearly, including income from wealth, which is quite a lot, But It's worth noting that all but one of them had a total income that was close to their income from work which suggests no significant wealth.

I also managed to find this small list of how large part of the candidates in the 2006 election that had a wealth of more than 110 000 €, sorted by party membership.

Moderaterna (Conservatives) 9,0%
Folkpartiet (Liberals) 7,4%
Centerpartiet (More Liberals) 4,8%
Miljöpartiet (Enviromentalists) 4,1%
Kristdemokraterna (Christians Conservatives) 3,1%
Socialdemokraterna (Social Democrats) 2,1%
Vänsterpartiet (More Social Democrats) 0,7%

So, my conclusion is that it is indeed possible hold power without significant wealth. Even if you live in a "developed" country.

@Maharlika: I don't believe they are more into meritocracy, but I think you have a point regarding the question of money. It's probably easier to pay less importance to wealth if you live in a welfare state.

Tricky · Post by **Tricky** » Mon May 14, 2007 12:59 am

I think the highest positions (in companies or politics) should pay the least, just to strip that part of society clean of unhealthy ambitions. The same reason the Helios from Deus Ex thinks it should rule because it lacks all ambition.

No chance of either of those scenarios happening though.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Mon May 14, 2007 6:57 am

Fable, I'm going to answer a question that isn't exactly what you asked but I think gets to the heart of your issue: what if it's not a bad thing that the national leaders in most nations are rich? Don't we want people who are intelligent and driven to succeed leading the country?

I know that GWB is the heir to a modern political dynasty, but many other people have made their own lots in life- I can think of Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and John McCain off the top of my head. Maybe the ability to make money is an indicator of a certain will to succeed?

Also, sometimes being rich has benefits that go beyond the campaign process. I lived in NYC and was always struck by Mayor Michael Bloomberg's ability to take risky political positions. He had a certain "I don't care what you think because if I don't get reelected, I'll just go back to my billions" quality, and that has actually benefitted the city. He's revamped the school system and made education a priority.

Finally, there are a lot of costs associated with running for office, and I always think of what people have to give up to be in public life. Maybe GWB and Cheney are just power-hungry, but many public officers get paid strikingly less in public office than they would in the private sector. I always think of Federal Judges (who aren't elected, but still...)- they often forego literally millions of dollars in salary as partners to work in the federal court system. That choice shouldn't be overlooked...

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon May 14, 2007 7:33 am

Post removed. I really did mean the question that I stated, and not another.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Mon May 14, 2007 10:17 am

Most of the time I don't think national leaders can be poor. Nor should they be. Any national leader should be smart and capable enough to make a fortune.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Mon May 14, 2007 10:28 am

Cuchulain82 wrote:Most of the time I don't think national leaders can be poor. Nor should they be. Any national leader should be smart and capable enough to make a fortune.

You're making an implicit assumption that intelligence and capability necessarily lead to personal wealth I disagree with.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Mon May 14, 2007 10:29 am

Cuchulain82 wrote:Most of the time I don't think national leaders can be poor. Nor should they be. Any national leader should be smart and capable enough to make a fortune.

Two factors that heavily influence your ability to make a fortune is socio-economical background and your personal motivation to make a fortune. Should I take it that you consider lower class and non materialistic people less suitable for leadership?

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon May 14, 2007 10:40 am

Cuchulain82 wrote:Most of the time I don't think national leaders can be poor. Nor should they be. Any national leader should be smart and capable enough to make a fortune.

But which national leaders that you know actually built their own fortunes? Dubya was bankrolled by his daddy (and lost it, and got bailed out by him, too). Kennedy was a scion of a very wealthy family. Reagan was bankrolled by his wealthy friends. Bush Sr and Johnson were selfmade multi-millionaires, but both were noted for being heavy-handed bullies, rather than people whose working roots gave them insights into dealing with the problems of their constituents. I think a good argument could be made, based on the above, among others, that building your own fortune is a good reason you should never be allowed in politics. Because you're used to getting your way no matter what, and have zero empathy or tolerance for disagreement.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Mon May 14, 2007 12:01 pm

Viscun]You're making an implicit assumption that intelligence and capability necessarily lead to personal wealth I disagree with.[/quote] It's not an implicit assumption- it's explicit. Generally wrote:Should I take it that you consider lower class and non materialistic people less suitable for leadership?

No, but like probable. How many non-materialistic and/or less-affluent people do you know of who would actually run for president seriously? I can't think of one. Not because they aren't capable, but because they aren't interested.

fable, post: 939545" wrote:But which national leaders that you know actually built their own fortunes? Dubya was bankrolled by his daddy (and lost it, and got bailed out by him, too). Kennedy was a scion of a very wealthy family. Reagan was bankrolled by his wealthy friends. Bush Sr and Johnson were selfmade multi-millionaires, but both were noted for being heavy-handed bullies, rather than people whose working roots gave them insights into dealing with the problems of their constituents. I think a good argument could be made, based on the above, among others, that building your own fortune is a good reason you should never be allowed in politics. Because you're used to getting your way no matter what, and have zero empathy or tolerance for disagreement.

Fable, you're picking your spots! Many many modern politicans have been self made- Bill Clinton, John McCain, Barrack Obama, John Edwards, Rahm Emanuel, Michael Bloomberg... etc. Just because you hate GWB and the neo-cons doesn't mean you should rail away about the evils of the rich. Sometimes people who don't deserve power get it, and they sometimes use it in ways you and I might find distasteful- stifilng dissent, curtailing speech, etc. However, most people have money because either they or their families worked hard to get it. It is their right to do what they want with that money, including spending it on politics to make their voices heard.

Also, what's wrong with a leader who's been a hard-nosed boss? I want a president who can be equal parts thug and charming politico. I want my president to be the smartest person in the room at all times, and I want them to make my life better along with the lives of everyone else. Having contempt for someone who used every option they could to run for office doesn't appeal to me.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Mon May 14, 2007 12:42 pm

Cuchulain82 wrote:No, but like probable. How many non-materialistic and/or less-affluent people do you know of who would actually run for president seriously? I can't think of one. Not because they aren't capable, but because they aren't interested.

I hardly know one person that would run for president, so it's not really a fair question. However, if I look at the persons I know that are interested in taking part in political life then almost all of them are non-materialistic. If I look at the prime ministers of Sweden there seem to be no over representation of materialistic people.

However, all this is beside the point as you said:

Cuchulain82 wrote:Most of the time I don't think national leaders can be poor. Nor should they be. Any national leader should be smart and capable enough to make a fortune.

(My bold)

Which means that you believe it's preferable they possess qualities that makes you rich. Is that what you mean, or do you instead (like above) mean that it is only more likely that they are materialistic?

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Mon May 14, 2007 12:45 pm

Cuchulain82 wrote:It's not an implicit assumption- it's explicit. Generally, and there are exceptions, smarter and more driven people make more money and are more successful than less driven, less intelligent people.

Strange. When I think of smart, driven people, I think of Maxwell, Einstein, Hawkins, Mark Twain, Vonnegut, Hemingway, and none of them were particularly rich. The problem with your assumption is twofold: firstly, wealth is often hereditary - just think of everyone's favorite hotel heiress, Ms. Hilton. Secondly, many very gifted individuals are simply not interested in wealth. I've already mentioned a few of them.

A personal fortune amassed from very little would be a sign of at least some intelligence, yes, but simply being rich is absolutely no qualification for leadership like you posted.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Mon May 14, 2007 1:19 pm

Vicsun wrote:A personal fortune amassed from very little would be a sign of at least some intelligence, yes, but simply being rich is absolutely no qualification for leadership like you posted.

I absolutely agree.

The way I see it, you have to have the influence and the political machinery to be able to make it as president.

I think the critical aspect of it is how influential this person is and the modes that he uses in order to establish his sphere of influence. Business savvy may help, but it doesn't guarantee that you're better off than others for that attempt at the highest position of the land.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon May 14, 2007 2:02 pm

Cuchulain82 wrote:Fable, you're picking your spots! Many many modern politicans have been self made- Bill Clinton, John McCain, Barrack Obama, John Edwards, Rahm Emanuel, Michael Bloomberg... etc. Just because you hate GWB and the neo-cons doesn't mean you should rail away about the evils of the rich.

You've made a sweeping statement: Any national leader should be smart and capable enough to make a fortune. Of course I'm going to pick my spots: they're the holes in your argument.

If it can't stand disection, maybe it doesn't hold up as a general statement. I don't think it does, and you've used to furnish any specifics behind your argument, and any proofs that reality conforms to it.

It is their right to do what they want with that money, including spending it on politics to make their voices heard.

"Money and not morality is the principle of commerce and commercial nations... Justice, honor, faith, must yield to the necessity of keeping themselves in place. The question whether a measure is moral is never asked, but whether it will nourish the avarice of their merchants, or the piratical spirit of their navy, or produce any other effect which may strengthen them in their places... This is the true character of [such governments] in practice, however different [their] theory; and it presents the singular phenomenon of a nation, the individuals of which are as faithful to their private engagements and duties, as honorable, as worthy, as those of any nation on earth, and whose government is yet the most unprincipled [ever] known."

A remarkable insightful man, Jefferson. He's arguing that precisely the kind of government you believe is natural, is also the worst ("most unprincipled"), because it won and maintained by those virtues of private commerce you laud. I'm inclined to agree with him.

Also, what's wrong with a leader who's been a hard-nosed boss? I want a president who can be equal parts thug and charming politico. I want my president to be the smartest person in the room at all times, and I want them to make my life better along with the lives of everyone else. Having contempt for someone who used every option they could to run for office doesn't appeal to me.

The problem lies in the phrase, "make my life better along with the lives of everyone else." That's not the nature of a hard-nosed boss, who gets ahead by screwing their employees to make as low a wage as possible, while viewing their competitors as dangerous opponents who must be driven from existence by fair means or foul. This is not the kind of leader that most nations need, at most times. I also think it at least arguable that this kind of leader is the worst kind to put in charge of a major nation today, when they can destroy so much on an international level, as well as at home.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Mon May 14, 2007 2:35 pm

Vicsun wrote:Strange. When I think of smart, driven people, I think of Maxwell, Einstein, Hawkins, Mark Twain, Vonnegut, Hemingway, and none of them were particularly rich.

I have a lower standard for "rich" than maybe I've expressed. Hemingway, Vonnegut, and Mark Twain were rich, at least at the time of their deaths. They had amassed great amounts of personal wealth and political capital (Hemingway and Twain more than Vonnegut, but even Vonnegut had a house in the Hamptons).

If I had to think of someone who was driven and not materialistic, maybe Niels Bohr is a good example? I don't know enough about Einstein to say if he was rich, driven, or just really lucky and smart...

Viscun]The problem with your assumption is twofold: firstly wrote: You're commiting a classic fallacy. I don't mean to say that "If a person is rich, they are qualified for politics." I'm saying that "If a person is qualified for politics, they should have the ability to make money." It's not really as awful as everyone seems to think, and I'm not endorsing a kleptocracy.

(I think this answers your question too, Dottie)

Viscun]A personal fortune amassed from very little would be a sign of at least some intelligence wrote: Agreed. And, unfortunately, sometimes people who are otherwise not qualified get elected to an office because they have money. I don't have a solution for this problem though.

Fable]A remarkable insightful man wrote: Fable, Jefferson was the principal architect of the private system of wealth in the US. The "Jeffersonian System" of property was based on chopping up the commons so that private individuals, the farmer-philosophers (my term) he put so much stock in, could use the resources of the commons and embetter the nation. If you think Jefferson was anything other than an eloquent capitalist you're sadly mistaken. If you agree with him, then you agree with me.

Since we're quoting, he's one I really like. It's by Justice [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Black"]Hugo Black[/url] in [url="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZD.html"]Griswold v. Connecticut[/url] (dissent). He's quoting the legendary american jurist [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand"]Learned Hand[/url]:

The late Judge Learned Hand, after emphasizing his view that judges should not use the due process formula suggested in the concurring opinions today or any other formula like it to invalidate legislation offensive to their "personal preferences," made the statement, with which I fully agree, that:

"For myself, it would be most irksome to be ruled by a bevy of Platonic Guardians, even if I knew how to choose them, which I assuredly do not."

Fable, who are you to judge? Do you know enough to assume that you can fix this system, wave the Gamebanshee wand and instill [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(Plato)"]Justice[/url] where all has been lost to heathens from Texas? I'm a big believer in the American system, and I hate GWB, but the fact is that somewhere along the line, someone made that money, through ingenuity, timing, luck... whatever. They have the right to spend it how they want, and if that includes spending it to run for office, then the Constitution gives them that right.