4 ms·
> Fundamentally though, a billionaire should not be a political leader, too much opportunity of corruption or the appearance of it. Quite the contrary, the ric
by tomp 3y ago
> Fundamentally though, a billionaire should not be a political leader, too much opportunity of corruption or the appearance of it.
Quite the contrary, the richer a person is, the harder they are to corrupt (both in theory - need more money to sway them - as in practice - much cheaper to corrupt someone else), and the less they care about being corrupted (they can afford to follow their principles, e.g. Musk buying Twitter even though it doesn’t make financial sense, or Gates giving his wealth away).
- decodebytes 3y ago> the richer a person is, the harder they are to corrupt That is quite a lot view of non-rich citizens. A lot have morals as baseline for corruption, beyond the cash / assets we hold.
- tomp 3y agoI view rich and non-rich people equally. Many are moral, many others are corruptible. Among the latter, it’s harder (more expensive) to corrupt a non-rich person
- Arrath 3y ago> the richer a person is, the harder they are to corrupt ... and the less they care about being corrupted Perhaps by outside forces, but what about corrupt practices that furthers their own private interests in exclusion of the e.g. country they're leading?
- jareklupinski 3y ago> the richer a person is, the harder they are to corrupt to a certain point obviously if the only thing a person cares about is "more money" (which, in a billionaire's case, is self-evident), you can assume they'll do _anything_ for _even a little bit_ of money see: extremely wealthy people never tipping
- hobs 3y agoEvery action Musk has taken post twitter has been to economically support it, he tried his damndest to get out of buying it after making a ridiculous offer, and is selling Tesla stock to do it.
- mrguyorama 3y agoYou are ignoring that there is a second parameter: Willingness to be corrupted. I believe that there is extreme overlap between high personal wealth and a willingness to be corrupted, which would make richer people worse politicians. Everyone says "everyone has a price" but we have examples of normal people being given the opportunity to have way more power and giving it up for the greater good (for example, smedly butler who was supposed to become some sort of supreme leader in a fascist plot, but turned the conspirators in instead, and basically got no reward for doing so, and the conspirators largely went unpunished)
- samwillis 3y ago> or the appearance of it The public at large see a rich person with an opportunity to grow their wealth through politics. You may well be right, and that is the (original) concept behind the House of Lords, but as with everything in politics its appearance that matters. Also it's not always about them being corrupted, it can be them as the corrupting force.
- tgv 3y agoSo something like robber barons never happened? They were so rich, they didn't need to conspire.
- padjo 3y agoSome might say that amassing that much wealth is a sign that they are already corrupted in some way. I would say: beware of the principles of those who wield power and have little common cause with you.
- bparsons 3y agoFriend, I have a bridge to sell you in San Francisco. Great deal, just for you.