‘World’s Poorest President’ Explains Why We Should Kick Rich People Out Of Politics

[Angry Floof]

‘World’s Poorest President’ Explains Why We Should Kick Rich People Out Of Politics

“I’m not against people who have money, who like money, who go crazy for money,” Mujica said. “But in politics we have to separate them. We have to run people who love money too much out of politics, they’re a danger in politics… People who love money should dedicate themselves to industry, to commerce, to multiply wealth. But politics is the struggle for the happiness of all.”

Asked why rich people make bad representatives of poor people, Mujica said: “They tend to view the world through their perspective, which is the perspective of money. Even when operating with good intentions, the perspective they have of the world, of life, of their decisions, is informed by wealth. If we live in a world where the majority is supposed to govern, we have to try to root our perspective in that of the majority, not the minority.”

I don't necessarily agree with kicking rich people out of political office, but he makes very good points.

Humans are too prone to letting money drive them. Money is power. Couple that power with the power of politics and the entitlement mentality fostered in these conditions. Those are not the ideal minds to be making big decisions that affect everyone. They may be intelligent and capable, but almost as likely to let greed and entitlement run the show as religious fundamentalists are likely to try to force their beliefs into public policy. It may be that the power of money is more subtle and subconscious and therefore more influential on the person who is telling him or herself, "I totally don't let money stop me from doing the right thing from my powerful and influential public office. I'm awesome."

The cure for that is training in using critical thinking skills on one's own thoughts, reactions, emotions, and decisions. That's how I describe "exercising one's own conscience."



Like that's ever gonna happen.

Even so, I'm not sure if kicking the rich out of political office would be more unfair than it is reasonable to even test it out.

We'd also miss out on the contributions of all the rich people who do value people over money, who do hold themselves accountable, who can say "I was wrong, I'm sorry" like a god damned grownup, and who do more good than harm.

Not least of all, the fight that it would take to even get such a bill past the zygote stage. Think religious zealotry has turned the GOP into an idiocracy machine now? The disease would just dig in deeper. First new law created after such a bill is killed: Rich politicians can legally enter any citizen's house and beat them to death with bags of gold doubloons. The popular "Learn Your Place" law. Why popular? Because rich politicians who like the law hang out with other rich politicians who like the law, therefore it's popular.

OK, that's a ridiculous scenario but it does illustrate Mujica's point.

What do you think?

 

[Tigers!]

Just to start the ball rolling.

Define rich? More money that you have or less money than you have?
When you have a level defined please justify it at that level rather than another.

 

[Angry Floof]

Just to start the ball rolling.

Define rich? More money that you have or less money than you have?
When you have a level defined please justify it at that level rather than another.

I don't know. Good question. What would seem reasonable to you?

 

[ronburgundy]

Just to start the ball rolling.

Define rich? More money that you have or less money than you have?
When you have a level defined please justify it at that level rather than another.

The author's point is "rich" relative to the typical income of the people they are supposed to represent, which is justified by the fact that they cannot represent the interests of people whose experiences and concerns are so unfamiliar to them. There is no cutoff of wealth that the author is referring to. They are just saying that the average wealth among politicians should be much closer to the average wealth of the general public rather than about 70 times the median net worth of the general public as it is now. A good start would be to massively slash the salaries given to politicians (by about 75%), so that their wage income is only double that of the median worker rather than 8 times. The positive impact of that would NOT be that it would change the perspective of current politicians (they would still be filthy rich), but that it would discourage wealthy people for whom more wealth for themselves is a major priority from wanting to hold office. The salary should be the minimum amount that would be fair to pay a non-wealthy person for the job being done, without being enough to attract people for the pay itself and should even discourage people that aren't willing to do the job for a mere double the median worker salary.

 

[fromderinside]

Just to start the ball rolling.

Define rich? More money that you have or less money than you have?
When you have a level defined please justify it at that level rather than another.

If you can rub two coins in our pocket or two bit coins in your computer you are too rich.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just to start the ball rolling.

Define rich? More money that you have or less money than you have?
When you have a level defined please justify it at that level rather than another.

My definition of rich is a person who is well short of retirement and yet has enough money they do not need to work to maintain a high standard of living. If they're of retirement age plot back assuming they accumulated their money over their lifetime--could they have retired way early.

 

[Deepak]

Just to start the ball rolling.

Define rich? More money that you have or less money than you have?
When you have a level defined please justify it at that level rather than another.

The author's point is "rich" relative to the typical income of the people they are supposed to represent, which is justified by the fact that they cannot represent the interests of people whose experiences and concerns are so unfamiliar to them. There is no cutoff of wealth that the author is referring to. They are just saying that the average wealth among politicians should be much closer to the average wealth of the general public rather than about 70 times the median net worth of the general public as it is now. A good start would be to massively slash the salaries given to politicians (by about 75%), so that their wage income is only double that of the median worker rather than 8 times. The positive impact of that would NOT be that it would change the perspective of current politicians (they would still be filthy rich), but that it would discourage wealthy people for whom more wealth for themselves is a major priority from wanting to hold office. The salary should be the minimum amount that would be fair to pay a non-wealthy person for the job being done, without being enough to attract people for the pay itself and should even discourage people that aren't willing to do the job for a mere double the median worker salary.

I get the spirit of the suggestion, but I'm left wondering if it just makes the politicians more susceptible to palm-greasing corruption. I think we need a serious civic reorientation to make such a thing work. That is to say it would be necessary but not exactly sufficient.

 

[arkirk]

Just to start the ball rolling.

Define rich? More money that you have or less money than you have?
When you have a level defined please justify it at that level rather than another.

My definition of rich is a person who is well short of retirement and yet has enough money they do not need to work to maintain a high standard of living. If they're of retirement age plot back assuming they accumulated their money over their lifetime--could they have retired way early.

So to you it is all about quitting on life at some point...and money says you get to do it earlier. You have always had a very tangential attitude toward society as a whole, so it would I suppose be a matter of having money substitute for human involvement. Richness is having enough money to get people to do things they do not like to do for your money. It has nothing to do with being lazy and retiring. If you have enough money and the will to order people to do things they regard as against the interest of society as a whole, you have accumulated a liability. I think Uraguay is an interesting country and their president seems on the right track. We can clearly settle just what amount of wealth constitutes being rich in due time democratically.

 

[ronburgundy]

The author's point is "rich" relative to the typical income of the people they are supposed to represent, which is justified by the fact that they cannot represent the interests of people whose experiences and concerns are so unfamiliar to them. There is no cutoff of wealth that the author is referring to. They are just saying that the average wealth among politicians should be much closer to the average wealth of the general public rather than about 70 times the median net worth of the general public as it is now. A good start would be to massively slash the salaries given to politicians (by about 75%), so that their wage income is only double that of the median worker rather than 8 times. The positive impact of that would NOT be that it would change the perspective of current politicians (they would still be filthy rich), but that it would discourage wealthy people for whom more wealth for themselves is a major priority from wanting to hold office. The salary should be the minimum amount that would be fair to pay a non-wealthy person for the job being done, without being enough to attract people for the pay itself and should even discourage people that aren't willing to do the job for a mere double the median worker salary.

I get the spirit of the suggestion, but I'm left wondering if it just makes the politicians more susceptible to palm-greasing corruption. I think we need a serious civic reorientation to make such a thing work. That is to say it would be necessary but not exactly sufficient.

I am betting that those who are already wealthy (many/most who got there via a lack of ethics) are as or more susceptible to being corrupted by bribes than people who make a middle class living.

 

[Angry Floof]

The author's point is "rich" relative to the typical income of the people they are supposed to represent, which is justified by the fact that they cannot represent the interests of people whose experiences and concerns are so unfamiliar to them. There is no cutoff of wealth that the author is referring to. They are just saying that the average wealth among politicians should be much closer to the average wealth of the general public rather than about 70 times the median net worth of the general public as it is now. A good start would be to massively slash the salaries given to politicians (by about 75%), so that their wage income is only double that of the median worker rather than 8 times. The positive impact of that would NOT be that it would change the perspective of current politicians (they would still be filthy rich), but that it would discourage wealthy people for whom more wealth for themselves is a major priority from wanting to hold office. The salary should be the minimum amount that would be fair to pay a non-wealthy person for the job being done, without being enough to attract people for the pay itself and should even discourage people that aren't willing to do the job for a mere double the median worker salary.

I get the spirit of the suggestion, but I'm left wondering if it just makes the politicians more susceptible to palm-greasing corruption. I think we need a serious civic reorientation to make such a thing work. That is to say it would be necessary but not exactly sufficient.

I don't know that they'd be more susceptible to palm-greasing than the rich. Wealth has a huge psychological impact in terms of entitlement (to palm-greasing as to anything else) and a tendency to rationalize greed.

People who are self aware, conscientious, educated, and wealthy don't often go into politics. Think Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and countless other millionaires and billionaires whose actions and choices show that they are at least mindful of the effects of financial power on themselves.

But self awareness, conscientiousness, and education (beyond displaying credentials as part of an image) are not the most popular traits in general in our culture. To people who are not strongly given to questioning themselves and cultivating their sense of empathy (the majority of us perhaps? rich or poor, politician or not?), money is a delicious and persuasive subconscious driver.

Mujica's point was that there is a crucial difference in lifestyle perspective, which I agree with. But my point goes further into other insidious ways that having a lot of money can affect a person's decisions and regard for his or her fellow human beings.

 

[Jarhyn]

I get the spirit of the suggestion, but I'm left wondering if it just makes the politicians more susceptible to palm-greasing corruption. I think we need a serious civic reorientation to make such a thing work. That is to say it would be necessary but not exactly sufficient.

I don't know that they'd be more susceptible to palm-greasing than the rich. Wealth has a huge psychological impact in terms of entitlement (to palm-greasing as to anything else) and a tendency to rationalize greed.

People who are self aware, conscientious, educated, and wealthy don't often go into politics. Think Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and countless other millionaires and billionaires whose actions and choices show that they are at least mindful of the effects of financial power on themselves.

But self awareness, conscientiousness, and education (beyond displaying credentials as part of an image) are not the most popular traits in general in our culture. To people who are not strongly given to questioning themselves and cultivating their sense of empathy (the majority of us perhaps? rich or poor, politician or not?), money is a delicious and persuasive subconscious driver.

Mujica's point was that there is a crucial difference in lifestyle perspective, which I agree with. But my point goes further into other insidious ways that having a lot of money can affect a person's decisions and regard for his or her fellow human beings.

And I'll say it again, as I've said it so often I am tired of saying it: if we want money out of politics, the only way is to make politicians by whatever mechanism incapable of receiving bribes. If someone wants power over a society, we absolutely need to be in the business of guaranteeing them a comfortable life and prohibiting ANY additional outside income for some period of time directly proportional to the power they have been granted. Power MUST come at the expense of oversight.

 

[TV and credit cards]

We've heard of politicians who can't remember the last time they pumped gas or didn't know what a grocery scanner was. I would have a test for entering politics. A 'you might be too rich to serve the people if...' test.
Start with asking them what day of the week it is. If they have to think about it, they might be too rich to serve the people.

To quote Violet Crawley: "What's a weekend?"

 

[Angry Floof]

I don't know that they'd be more susceptible to palm-greasing than the rich. Wealth has a huge psychological impact in terms of entitlement (to palm-greasing as to anything else) and a tendency to rationalize greed.

People who are self aware, conscientious, educated, and wealthy don't often go into politics. Think Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and countless other millionaires and billionaires whose actions and choices show that they are at least mindful of the effects of financial power on themselves.

But self awareness, conscientiousness, and education (beyond displaying credentials as part of an image) are not the most popular traits in general in our culture. To people who are not strongly given to questioning themselves and cultivating their sense of empathy (the majority of us perhaps? rich or poor, politician or not?), money is a delicious and persuasive subconscious driver.

Mujica's point was that there is a crucial difference in lifestyle perspective, which I agree with. But my point goes further into other insidious ways that having a lot of money can affect a person's decisions and regard for his or her fellow human beings.

And I'll say it again, as I've said it so often I am tired of saying it: if we want money out of politics, the only way is to make politicians by whatever mechanism incapable of receiving bribes. If someone wants power over a society, we absolutely need to be in the business of guaranteeing them a comfortable life and prohibiting ANY additional outside income for some period of time directly proportional to the power they have been granted. Power MUST come at the expense of oversight.

That, too, yes. Absolutely.

Mujica's view and mine is that even without palm-greasing or extracurricular income, the rich live in a world not shared by the vast majority of those they are supposed to represent.

 

[untermensche]

Rich in the context of US elections are billionaires.

They run the show and call the shots, and the candidates sing the songs they want sung.

Except Bernie.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My definition of rich is a person who is well short of retirement and yet has enough money they do not need to work to maintain a high standard of living. If they're of retirement age plot back assuming they accumulated their money over their lifetime--could they have retired way early.

So to you it is all about quitting on life at some point...and money says you get to do it earlier. You have always had a very tangential attitude toward society as a whole, so it would I suppose be a matter of having money substitute for human involvement. Richness is having enough money to get people to do things they do not like to do for your money. It has nothing to do with being lazy and retiring. If you have enough money and the will to order people to do things they regard as against the interest of society as a whole, you have accumulated a liability. I think Uraguay is an interesting country and their president seems on the right track. We can clearly settle just what amount of wealth constitutes being rich in due time democratically.

It's not a matter of what it's about--I was simply presenting a yardstick. The rich tend not to retire early because they like what they're doing.

- - - Updated - - -

We've heard of politicians who can't remember the last time they pumped gas or didn't know what a grocery scanner was. I would have a test for entering politics. A 'you might be too rich to serve the people if...' test.
Start with asking them what day of the week it is. If they have to think about it, they might be too rich to serve the people.

To quote Violet Crawley: "What's a weekend?"

Disagree--if you don't work a Monday-Friday job it's easy to forget the day of the week. That doesn't mean you don't work, though.

 

[arkirk]

So to you it is all about quitting on life at some point...and money says you get to do it earlier. You have always had a very tangential attitude toward society as a whole, so it would I suppose be a matter of having money substitute for human involvement. Richness is having enough money to get people to do things they do not like to do for your money. It has nothing to do with being lazy and retiring. If you have enough money and the will to order people to do things they regard as against the interest of society as a whole, you have accumulated a liability. I think Uraguay is an interesting country and their president seems on the right track. We can clearly settle just what amount of wealth constitutes being rich in due time democratically.

It's not a matter of what it's about--I was simply presenting a yardstick. The rich tend not to retire early because they like what they're doing.

- - - Updated - - -

We've heard of politicians who can't remember the last time they pumped gas or didn't know what a grocery scanner was. I would have a test for entering politics. A 'you might be too rich to serve the people if...' test.
Start with asking them what day of the week it is. If they have to think about it, they might be too rich to serve the people.

To quote Violet Crawley: "What's a weekend?"

Disagree--if you don't work a Monday-Friday job it's easy to forget the day of the week. That doesn't mean you don't work, though.

Just the same, Loren, you have posited that rich is retiring earlier. It is funny that greed seems to have no retirement date except death. You have Buffet with his silver locks buying and selling just as much as at any previous time in his life. Buffet is rich...and not retiring early.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not a matter of what it's about--I was simply presenting a yardstick. The rich tend not to retire early because they like what they're doing.

- - - Updated - - -

We've heard of politicians who can't remember the last time they pumped gas or didn't know what a grocery scanner was. I would have a test for entering politics. A 'you might be too rich to serve the people if...' test.
Start with asking them what day of the week it is. If they have to think about it, they might be too rich to serve the people.

To quote Violet Crawley: "What's a weekend?"

Disagree--if you don't work a Monday-Friday job it's easy to forget the day of the week. That doesn't mean you don't work, though.

Just the same, Loren, you have posited that rich is retiring earlier. It is funny that greed seems to have no retirement date except death. You have Buffet with his silver locks buying and selling just as much as at any previous time in his life. Buffet is rich...and not retiring early.

No--I defined it based on being able to retire way early. When they actually did so is irrelevant.

 

[arkirk]

It's not a matter of what it's about--I was simply presenting a yardstick. The rich tend not to retire early because they like what they're doing.

- - - Updated - - -

We've heard of politicians who can't remember the last time they pumped gas or didn't know what a grocery scanner was. I would have a test for entering politics. A 'you might be too rich to serve the people if...' test.
Start with asking them what day of the week it is. If they have to think about it, they might be too rich to serve the people.

To quote Violet Crawley: "What's a weekend?"

Disagree--if you don't work a Monday-Friday job it's easy to forget the day of the week. That doesn't mean you don't work, though.

Just the same, Loren, you have posited that rich is retiring earlier. It is funny that greed seems to have no retirement date except death. You have Buffet with his silver locks buying and selling just as much as at any previous time in his life. Buffet is rich...and not retiring early.

No--I defined it based on being able to retire way early. When they actually did so is irrelevant.

I watched an hour of Bill Gates last night on Charlie Rose giving his report on how he and his foundations are fixing the world. The man is absolutely in love with himself and thinks his every thought is profound, yet he appeared to not even be aware of the most important aspects of climate change. He had talking points, just like any other snake oil salesman completely leaving out of his approach anything resembling conservation and actual decrease of per capita power consumption...an absolute must in any workable approach to global warming. I thought that showed what a ninny he was because he is involved in a technology capable of assisting greatly in terms of conservation and decreased energy consumption...but his head did not go there. Instead he thought it would be good if we could produce gasoline by direct conversion of the sun's energy into a fuel we could store in giant gas tanks. Where we are going wrong here is the fact that man needs to perfect his understanding of how to live on this earth without tearing it apart. I remember hearing Jerry Brown talk of elegant solutions to our water problems. Elegance and precision seems to be what people like Gates and Buffet lack and do not even slightly understand.

As long as it is the practice of human beings to use technology to force the world to reshape itself, there will be no solving of our energy or climate problems. By now that ought to be clear as the nose on your face. We are looking at a fucked up atmosphere surrounding us on all sides and water and land pollution on a global scale and saying we need to continue to get super physical with this earth. What we need to do far more is to become practitioners of sustainable and ethical living.
Gates' giant gas tank or a flocks of nuclear plants or "clean" coal plants do nothing to educate and condition humanity to live sustainably. The problem with climate change is that its solution simply will not include consuming energy at the same rate our society is today. Less energy consumption is what we need and our economy militates against what we need...and your mind seems to run parallel to Gates. Expanding productive economies that require continuous expansion to remain "robust" militate against conservation and that is where the loin's share of future change is to be found. Our society will have to adjust accordingly. That means leaders like Murica have their fingers on the pulse of the problem far more than narrow minded techies.

 

[bilby]

It's not a matter of what it's about--I was simply presenting a yardstick. The rich tend not to retire early because they like what they're doing.

- - - Updated - - -

We've heard of politicians who can't remember the last time they pumped gas or didn't know what a grocery scanner was. I would have a test for entering politics. A 'you might be too rich to serve the people if...' test.
Start with asking them what day of the week it is. If they have to think about it, they might be too rich to serve the people.

To quote Violet Crawley: "What's a weekend?"

Disagree--if you don't work a Monday-Friday job it's easy to forget the day of the week. That doesn't mean you don't work, though.

Just the same, Loren, you have posited that rich is retiring earlier. It is funny that greed seems to have no retirement date except death. You have Buffet with his silver locks buying and selling just as much as at any previous time in his life. Buffet is rich...and not retiring early.

No--I defined it based on being able to retire way early. When they actually did so is irrelevant.

I watched an hour of Bill Gates last night on Charlie Rose giving his report on how he and his foundations are fixing the world. The man is absolutely in love with himself and thinks his every thought is profound, yet he appeared to not even be aware of the most important aspects of climate change. He had talking points, just like any other snake oil salesman completely leaving out of his approach anything resembling conservation and actual decrease of per capita power consumption...an absolute must in any workable approach to global warming. I thought that showed what a ninny he was because he is involved in a technology capable of assisting greatly in terms of conservation and decreased energy consumption...but his head did not go there. Instead he thought it would be good if we could produce gasoline by direct conversion of the sun's energy into a fuel we could store in giant gas tanks. Where we are going wrong here is the fact that man needs to perfect his understanding of how to live on this earth without tearing it apart. I remember hearing Jerry Brown talk of elegant solutions to our water problems. Elegance and precision seems to be what people like Gates and Buffet lack and do not even slightly understand.

As long as it is the practice of human beings to use technology to force the world to reshape itself, there will be no solving of our energy or climate problems. By now that ought to be clear as the nose on your face. We are looking at a fucked up atmosphere surrounding us on all sides and water and land pollution on a global scale and saying we need to continue to get super physical with this earth. What we need to do far more is to become practitioners of sustainable and ethical living.
Gates' giant gas tank or a flocks of nuclear plants or "clean" coal plants do nothing to educate and condition humanity to live sustainably. The problem with climate change is that its solution simply will not include consuming energy at the same rate our society is today. Less energy consumption is what we need and our economy militates against what we need...and your mind seems to run parallel to Gates. Expanding productive economies that require continuous expansion to remain "robust" militate against conservation and that is where the loin's share of future change is to be found. Our society will have to adjust accordingly. That means leaders like Murica have their fingers on the pulse of the problem far more than narrow minded techies.

Well, it's only February, but it seems I have already found the stupidest thing I will read all year.

If you really think that reduced per capita energy consumption regardless of source is a good thing, then there is no hope for you. I have rarely seen such devout faith in an idea so bone-shakingly dumb - and I debate with religious people for fun.

How, exactly, making liquid fuel from air, using solar power, could be a bad thing, I am pretty sure I don't want to hear - I already lost enough IQ points by reading the claim, so please don't inflict an attempt at explanation on me.

Your religion is even worse than most, because it's central tenet is that people are a bad thing. I don't want to know how a mind gets that badly twisted.

Energy use is strongly correlated with quality of life, whether we compare historically, geographically or economically. A call for reduced per capita energy use is a call for reduced quality of life. If you feel that way, then act NOW, and stop using computers and the internet. But don't expect anyone else to be stupid enough to join you.

Of course, you won't do that; You will keep using electricity and gasoline, and will wail and flagellate and scream 'mea maxima culpa' like a deranged medieval friar, while making it quite clear that you actually despise those who fail to abase themselves for the 'sin' of living a comfortable and blameless life. Your ideas are vile, and the sanctimony with which they are presented makes them viler still.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I watched an hour of Bill Gates last night on Charlie Rose giving his report on how he and his foundations are fixing the world. The man is absolutely in love with himself and thinks his every thought is profound, yet he appeared to not even be aware of the most important aspects of climate change. He had talking points, just like any other snake oil salesman completely leaving out of his approach anything resembling conservation and actual decrease of per capita power consumption...an absolute must in any workable approach to global warming. I thought that showed what a ninny he was because he is involved in a technology capable of assisting greatly in terms of conservation and decreased energy consumption...but his head did not go there. Instead he thought it would be good if we could produce gasoline by direct conversion of the sun's energy into a fuel we could store in giant gas tanks. Where we are going wrong here is the fact that man needs to perfect his understanding of how to live on this earth without tearing it apart. I remember hearing Jerry Brown talk of elegant solutions to our water problems. Elegance and precision seems to be what people like Gates and Buffet lack and do not even slightly understand.

As long as it is the practice of human beings to use technology to force the world to reshape itself, there will be no solving of our energy or climate problems. By now that ought to be clear as the nose on your face. We are looking at a fucked up atmosphere surrounding us on all sides and water and land pollution on a global scale and saying we need to continue to get super physical with this earth. What we need to do far more is to become practitioners of sustainable and ethical living.
Gates' giant gas tank or a flocks of nuclear plants or "clean" coal plants do nothing to educate and condition humanity to live sustainably. The problem with climate change is that its solution simply will not include consuming energy at the same rate our society is today. Less energy consumption is what we need and our economy militates against what we need...and your mind seems to run parallel to Gates. Expanding productive economies that require continuous expansion to remain "robust" militate against conservation and that is where the loin's share of future change is to be found. Our society will have to adjust accordingly. That means leaders like Murica have their fingers on the pulse of the problem far more than narrow minded techies.

Once again the radical Green agenda shows up--destroy the world in the name of saving it.