Rich People and Politics?

AzureAussie · #1 07-05-10, 09:50 AM

From an Australian perspective it's hard to understand why some very rich people, like Taksin but Berlusconi in Italy would be another example, even bother to be involved in government.

In Australia a serious businessman would consider it a grand waste of time to be the Prime Minister, too much of a pointless distraction from the real work of making money.

I'm not saying the wealthy don't have lots of influence in Australian politics, clearly they do, in any country, but this particular path, of the CEO of a huge company becoming also the CEO of a country, seems pretty inefficient to me.

What's the benefit?

Mikel.

**Marie** · #2 07-05-10, 11:13 AM

Interesting question. I guess this can be related to a theory by an American pshychologist (David McClelland) who poposed that human motivation comprises three dominant needs:

1) Need for achievement-or need to excel in one's undertakings
2) Need for affiliation- need for harmonious relationship with other people, need to be accepted
3) Need for power- need for authority, to be in charge, to direct others, to organize the efforts of others to further the goals of a group, organization, country (if in politics)

In his theory, David McClelland asserts that an individual's specific needs are acquired over time and are shaped by one's life experiences. The subjective importance of each need varies from individual to individual and depends also on an individual's background

Perhaps those who desire to acquire political positions have Need for Power as their most dominant need.

**Surawut** · #3 07-05-10, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzureAussie

From an Australian perspective it's hard to understand why some very rich people, like Taksin but Berlusconi in Italy would be another example, even bother to be involved in government.

In Australia a serious businessman would consider it a grand waste of time to be the Prime Minister, too much of a pointless distraction from the real work of making money.

I'm not saying the wealthy don't have lots of influence in Australian politics, clearly they do, in any country, but this particular path, of the CEO of a huge company becoming also the CEO of a country, seems pretty inefficient to me.

What's the benefit?

Mikel.

Megalomania has a lot to do with it.

The present Prime Minister of Australia is the richest man ever to hold the position, although all of the money is in his wife's name.

**jaibaan** · #4 07-05-10, 03:19 PM

I think it depends on the country. Where there is relatively little corruption, power and prestige is likely a big driver. The very wealthy often run for high office in the U.S. where the salary for them is probably more like a token of appreciation of sorts.

In California, there is currently a battle of the billionaires (or very close to it) in the gubernatorial race. The job pays just over $200,000. It has been reported that the current governor does not even accept the salary.

In other countries farther down the corruption scale, "champagne wishes and caviar dreams" may be better associated with post-election.

**Khun Don** · #5 07-05-10, 07:10 PM

When you have the money you need the power status and titles politics brings to go with it?
Not always the case, of course, in the UK, it seems, just making a big enough donation to a major political party you will get honours and titles!

**David_Loves_Ubonwan** · #6 07-05-10, 07:32 PM

Shouldn't we now be camped out in Westminster "demanding" that Gordon Brown resign in the interests of Democracy?

David

**Susana** · #7 07-05-10, 07:37 PM

I have heard the term 'wanting to serve' in connection with the wealthy becoming politicians. There are lots of ways to serve. It's just that some ways of serving humankind get less public notoriety than others.

fleagle · #8 07-05-10, 08:51 PM

Can be answered in 1 word......"POWER." - As the saying goes "power corrupts,but absolute power corrupts absolutely."

**paul_au** · #9 07-05-10, 10:13 PM

Australia's former opposition leader was the richest Member of the Australian parliament with a net worth of around 200 million, given that he could conservatively earn 5% income or about 10 million a year on that amount, that would make the salary Australian Prime Ministers income of 300 and something thousand look minuscule, look at Ross Perot in the US, a multi billionaire, he ran for president, he obviously would not consider the presidential wage as much of an incentive to work like a dog
The Rich don't join politics for money in western countries, they enjoy the prestige and power, there already got the money.

**Khun Don** · #10 07-05-10, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David_Loves_Ubonwan

Shouldn't we now be camped out in Westminster "demanding" that Gordon Brown resign in the interests of Democracy?

David

In this weather??!!

That is the problem-not to mention an instant crackdown by the Police!