4 ms·

> risk of using political office for personal gain remains. It may remain, however that doesn't mean the temptation isn't crippled. A 1 billion net worth pers

> risk of using political office for personal gain remains. It may remain, however that doesn't mean the temptation isn't crippled. A 1 billion net worth person is less likely to be tempted by a $50,000 "enrichment" opportunity compared to someone making $174,000 with a net worth of less than 100k.

jjoonathan 3y ago
A 1% chance of a 1% change in a $1B portfolio is worth $100k. Do you think it would be difficult to arrange for that 1% chance of a 1% change through plausibly deniable policy changes? Do you think it would be possible to achieve larger swings at higher reliability? How much do you think those plausibly achievable swings would be worth on a $1B portfolio? Working for a living and owning things for a living provide very different incentive landscapes that are often opposed to one another. Assets pay you in proportion to how much you own, so "owning things for a living" is roughly synonymous with a net worth above a line that lands somewhere between $10M and $100M depending on how you draw the line. In any case, if you work for a living, you definitely do not want to be represented by politicians who own things for a living.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rsynnott 3y ago
I mean, you'd think, but look at the petty corrupt bullshit Trump got up to! Going to his hotels with his secret service people... then overcharging them for rooms. Like, just ridiculous, and not a consequential amount of money for him, but he still _did it_.
- stronglikedan 3y ago
  > but he still _did it_ Did he? Probably not, when you look at all the facts.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    Eh? I mean you could argue about how _important_ it was (personally I would class it as somewhat important, but very, _very_ funny; it's just so petty), but it did clearly happen; there's not much doubt about that.
    - itsyaboi 3y ago
      I had not heard of this and was curious as to the context. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-organization-charged-secret-service-much-1185-night-stay-trump-d-rcna52521 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-organiza... According to the NPR article, the SS has a $200 per-diem limit for hotel expenses and by staying with Trump at his hotel (where rooms run about $1k/night), exceeded this limit. This raises the question: how do accommodations work for president's entourages when traveling? I have a hard time believing that they restrict themselves to Holiday Inn tier establishments. Hotel rooms in larger cities can easily run $500/night, especially on a short notice.
adolph 3y ago
That is very exclusionary to would-be bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hdonations from people of lesser means. As an alternative I propose the Aztec method. While they are in office, the elected is given every possible luxury and upon leaving their sacrifice is ceremonialized in a very public way so that all know the elected did not perform their duty for personal gain.
phatskat 3y ago
I don’t know about that - people in positions of wealth are fairly likely to shoplift. If you make $200k a year, why shoplift an $80 bottle of liquor? I would think the same holds true when considering your given scenario.
jrflowers 3y ago
> A 1 billion net worth person is less likely to be tempted by a $50,000 "enrichment" opportunity This is a good point. People act rationally all of the time, plus nobody has ever become a billionaire by compulsively capitalizing on every opportunity to gain wealth.

jjoonathan 3y ago

A 1% chance of a 1% change in a $1B portfolio is worth $100k. Do you think it would be difficult to arrange for that 1% chance of a 1% change through plausibly deniable policy changes? Do you think it would be possible to achieve larger swings at higher reliability? How much do you think those plausibly achievable swings would be worth on a $1B portfolio? Working for a living and owning things for a living provide very different incentive landscapes that are often opposed to one another. Assets pay you in proportion to how much you own, so "owning things for a living" is roughly synonymous with a net worth above a line that lands somewhere between $10M and $100M depending on how you draw the line. In any case, if you work for a living, you definitely do not want to be represented by politicians who own things for a living.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rsynnott 3y ago

I mean, you'd think, but look at the petty corrupt bullshit Trump got up to! Going to his hotels with his secret service people... then overcharging them for rooms. Like, just ridiculous, and not a consequential amount of money for him, but he still _did it_.

stronglikedan 3y ago
> but he still _did it_ Did he? Probably not, when you look at all the facts.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  Eh? I mean you could argue about how _important_ it was (personally I would class it as somewhat important, but very, _very_ funny; it's just so petty), but it did clearly happen; there's not much doubt about that.
  - itsyaboi 3y ago
    I had not heard of this and was curious as to the context. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-organization-charged-secret-service-much-1185-night-stay-trump-d-rcna52521 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-organiza... According to the NPR article, the SS has a $200 per-diem limit for hotel expenses and by staying with Trump at his hotel (where rooms run about $1k/night), exceeded this limit. This raises the question: how do accommodations work for president's entourages when traveling? I have a hard time believing that they restrict themselves to Holiday Inn tier establishments. Hotel rooms in larger cities can easily run $500/night, especially on a short notice.

adolph 3y ago

That is very exclusionary to would-be bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hdonations from people of lesser means. As an alternative I propose the Aztec method. While they are in office, the elected is given every possible luxury and upon leaving their sacrifice is ceremonialized in a very public way so that all know the elected did not perform their duty for personal gain.

phatskat 3y ago

I don’t know about that - people in positions of wealth are fairly likely to shoplift. If you make $200k a year, why shoplift an $80 bottle of liquor? I would think the same holds true when considering your given scenario.

jrflowers 3y ago

> A 1 billion net worth person is less likely to be tempted by a $50,000 "enrichment" opportunity This is a good point. People act rationally all of the time, plus nobody has ever become a billionaire by compulsively capitalizing on every opportunity to gain wealth.