This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Power and Influence

Jump to new

Julia

In Memoriam
Joined
10 May 2005
Posts
16,986
Reactions
1,973
With the US presidential elections and the global financial turmoil, I've been wondering what motivates those people who compete for the high offices of the world. Obviously it's power, but doesn't that power bring with it the potential for immense humiliation if the chosen person then gets it wrong?

And these people spend their life in the public eye, totally without privacy and with the media ready to jump on their slightest utterance, wise or foolish.

They themselves, I suspect, will always say they are competing for these positions because they believe they can "make a difference" (what a cliche that is!). If that's true, it's a philosophy which seems to be lost fairly soon after being elected with a very few exceptions.

Just think: what would it actually be like to be Henry Paulson, Barack Obama or John McCain right now? Sure, the adrenalin rush would be there, but wouldn't that be tempered with the mighty responsibility of all that is at stake?

Do these people need to have a very low level of personal sensitivity to be able to withstand all the insults and barbs they encounter? Or do they split off their public persona from the personal side which engages with family and friends?

Or are they just immensely egocentric and have an inflated notion of their capacity to affect global fortunes?

Personally I could think of nothing more awful than to constantly be responsible for other people's lives, to be deprived of any sense of privacy, and to become a function of the political or financial machine.

What do you think? Could you imagine yourself in one of these positions of power, and if so, why?
 
If the power can be taken away it is not worth fighting for IMHO. If I can have absolute power I will be happy Now with that thought I want to sleep....
 
Julia said:
And these people spend their life in the public eye, totally without privacy and with the media ready to jump on their slightest utterance, wise or foolish.
Click to expand...
Or are they just immensely egocentric and have an inflated notion of their capacity to affect global fortunes?
Click to expand...

I wonder if `insensitive` or `desensitised` is the right word for handling the flung dung.Half the world has an opinion on GWB and he still appears to have high self esteem.

What do you think? Could you imagine yourself in one of these positions of power, and if so, why?
Click to expand...

No, because I like animals and plants.
 
It's all about the power and control. These two things are some of the strongest motivators of behaviour.

These people generally come from rich, powerful families and have rich, powerful backers. It's their 'divine right' in a sense, to compete for these high, powered positions of control.

As for getting it wrong, everyone else is 'beneath' them, so what would they know? It's for the 'greater good' (greater good = rich & powerful).

Notice a common theme?


And no, I couldn't be in that position. I think I would prefer to work 'on the ground', changing the little things.

Change the world? Or change someone's world?
 
Look at Rudd his wife is worth $375 M thanks to the taxpayers of Australia and other parts of the World with all this falling around his ears and will get the blame and he wants this job. John Howard was the only winner out of the last election.
 
Sept. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Wall Street's five biggest firms paid more than $3 billion in the last five years to their top executives, while they presided over the packaging and sale of loans that helped bring down the investment-banking system.

Merrill Lynch & Co. paid its chief executives the most, with Stanley O'Neal taking in $172 million from 2003 to 2007 and John Thain getting $86 million, including a signing bonus, after beginning work in December. The company agreed to be acquired by Bank of America Corp. for about $50 billion on Sept. 15. Bear Stearns Cos.'s James ``Jimmy'' Cayne made $161 million before the company collapsed and was sold to JPMorgan Chase & Co. in June. "
 
I don't hate powerful greedy people.

I just hate that they are far more successful at being powerful and greedy than I have been.
 
Do you remember the name Andrew Pridham? I think the fee structure has to be revisited too, with Pridham making 10 - 20 million on some deals. They should be accountable too in the cases of poor judgement choices. He would have known about the fragility of the US property crisis.

"In one transaction alone last year, underwriting a capital raising of $1 billion for Centro, JP Morgan pocketed $25 million. It is this track record that surprises some onlookers about Pridham's involvement in the Centro debacle.

"He's been a very good judge of property over a very long period of time," says one associate, before questioning the quality of assets in the recent New Plan Excel acquisition.

"The structure, now you see it in cold light of day, was not necessarily something that was going to be sustainable, even if the credit crunch hadn't appeared."

With JP Morgan shunned from advising Centro now the banks are calling in loans, the question is, what now for Pridham and JP Morgan?"

http://business.smh.com.au/business...ntro-bricks-crumble-20080115-1m5p.html?page=1
 
Often leaders are just a mouthpieces of powerful invisible force, those who pull the strings.
 
I don't think you understand the influence Pridham has and as a result the amount of property and assets the family own, you may be surprised at what they personally own. Their not stupid to keep everything in his name, from years ago to move it into his wife's name.
 
One of the big dilemmas for elected politicians is whether to toe the line of the power-brokers who put them there, or to defy these power-brokers and do what is best for the majority. We are now seeing the ACTU who spent millions to put Mr Rudd in power, are now spending millions to bring him to heel. It is the Sir Humphrey Appelby "courageous decisions" dilemma.

Yes Julia I think you have to be egocentric to never admit you are wrong. President Nixon was a perfect example of this.
 

It's called a family DYNASTY.

Rich, powerful and influential families like to set up DYNASTIES to spread the risk of any one member of that family getting done by the "law" (eg: for "corrupt" business dealings etc). This spread of assets throughout a network of family trusts, real estate holdings etc, etc helps to ensure the continuation in perpetuity of that family's power, wealth and influence - almost no matter what.

Because of this very smart tactic, even a Great Depression is unlikely to topple the miriad filthy rich Dynasties on this planet. Look at Alan Bond's family Dynasty and his comeback as a "bigtime player" again as a prime example of how to salt away your fortune for a rainy day!

Let's face it, "when you're on a good thing - stick to it".....

 
Aussiejeff said:
It's called a family DYNASTY. ".....

Click to expand...


I understand that AussieJeff ho hmm:......keep it in the family. No wonder they build fortress, with every conceivable security device 'protecting' their places and build on 'old boy' and 'cafe club' networks.

The facade these dynastys present is a joke. I'm met various families children / teenagers they are some of the most obnoxious, vain, foul mouthed, undisciplined and in some cases violent young people. Knowing that the 'family' was always back them up or marry them off to another dynasty.
.
 
The head of Washington Mutual was in the job for 3 weeks and stands to walk out with $18 million!
CNN news today
 
Julia said:
What do you think? Could you imagine yourself in one of these positions of power, and if so, why?
Click to expand...

What about you Julia? Could you control millions of peoples lives?

I think the numbers are thin on who wants to lead such a lifestyle.Let alone the multitude of personality traits required to get there and the people (let`s call them friends) that push, usher, urge, finance and feed off the next person/s in line for the ivory tower.
 
Absolutlely no interest in controlling anyone, Wysiwig. I think that's why the question rather fascinated me. I know many people just assume to have power is desirable, but I'd find it utterly beyond my comprehension. The responsibility is awe-inspiring. But perhaps that's part of the problem?
The people who aspire to and attain power, don't think about the huge responsibilities they hold. Hence some the trouble we are in right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
WEF corrupts countries
Replies
6
Views
322
SirRumpole
The Fascist future
2 3
Replies
49
Views
2K
qldfrog
Cultivation of Facial Hair and Sociopathy
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
dyna
D
Cheap Chinese cars, not so cheap to repair
Replies
13
Views
491
Knobby22
Can you make money investing in watches?
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
moXJO
M
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...