Ollila has more power and influence (and gets paid more) than the president or prime minister of Finland. Why should he take a step downward?

When asked whether Ollila would run for president, I recall he replied “absolutely no”. So methinks it would be very unlikely he would change his mind. But anyway, I would vote for him given the chance!!!

Why? You think that it’s a good idea to have influential politicians who have a) So much money that they really don’t need to give a shit about anything and b) conflicts of interest in about every decision which has to do with … well, basically anything; education, communications, labor laws, you name it.

(And yes, I do realize that president of Finland does’t have really that much political power…)

Juha – maybe if they already have alot of money, they’ll be less likely to abuse their position to make themselves rich?

Presidency is such a ceremonial post that it might very well suit Jorma as a soft landing before retirement. But then again, Jorma is still a relatively young man. Maybe he will continue to serve Nokia for a long time still. Also, the pay isn’t bad.

P.S. I really wonder whether those CEOs with stratospheric salaries are really worth it. Maybe they really are if shareholders are competing for them that hard. I can’t wait until artificial intelligence finally replaces us all creating the necessary conditions for a transition into a society like Culture from the novels of Iain Banks, that is, mature anarchoCOMMUNISM.

Juha, so you think that “lots of money = a corrupted person”? I don’t think it’s that simple, it depends on the individual whether him/her will abuse any political power given to him. And besides, Ollila made his fortune in the PRIVATE SECTOR. I’d be much more worried if some politician suddenly became rich during his term.

No, I don’t think that extremely rich people such as Jorma Ollila are corrupt, quite the opposite (in this case) I think mr. Ollila seems to be very stand up guy and excellent leader.

However, wealthy corporatist manager types are not, in my opinion, well suited for public offices. This is not because of their wealth or person, but the fact that countries should not be run like businesses. And, vice versa, businesses should not be run like countries. There is a reason why there is a “public sector” and “private sector”.

Ok, maybe I’m an idealist (the sad fact is that countries are increasingly run as businesses)…

But, Juha, wealthy corporate managers are exactly what the public sector needs! Since government bureaucracy is inherently inefficient and self-expanding, somebody needs to put a stop on its growth and cut back useless costs! Especially corporate managers should be capable of doing that job, since there’s a natural incentive in the private sector to be efficient and build up “shareholder value”!

Why can’t we just get rid of the whole institution? Who needs a (mostly) ceremonial president when the Real Power™ already is in the hands of the parliament and the government (not to mention the EU)?