January 5, 2010
The Economics of the Microsoft Case
January 5, 2010
The Economics of Illegal Drugs
January 5, 2010
Intellectuals and Society
January 5, 2010
Thinking Outside the House
January 5, 2010
FP2P Watch
January 5, 2010
The Books I Wish My Colleagues Would Write
January 4, 2010
Predictably Irrational or Predictably Rational?
January 4, 2010
My Sowell-mate on the Knowledge-Power Discrepancy
January 4, 2010
FP2P Watch


I think the 8-out-of-10-richest (and 4-out-of-5-richest) being Democrats explains why the list goes to 15, instead of the more usual 10. Instead of 80% D, it's a more bipartisan-seeming 60%.
My guess is that it has more to do with campaign finance reform.
Well and there is the fact some become millionaires after gaining political power.
The lawyer thing is right. Rich people are more likely to vote Republican, but it varies by profession. If I'm remembering correctly, lawyers are one of the groups (along with journalists) who Andrew Gelman says vote more liberal than their high income would predict.
If you looked at the leading businessmen, by contrast, you'd find more conservative rich people.
I wonder if this holds true on the state and local levels. Does personal and/or family wealth have a direct impact on the likelihood of obtaining local political power? What does this say about the representation theory of governmental authority?
Good question Hume, I'd wager that incomes scale in respect to the power of the office. So, your average mayor of Podunk Town, USA might be relatively rich compared to the inhabitants of said town, but are likely not as wealthy as say a Senator, Governor, or Mayor of a Metropolis.
As far as what the representation theory implications would be, it would add more ammunition to the critics of the theory. I personally think it is a bit of a farce.