Andrew "bunnie" Huang has written a very good 2-page note on this in: http://bunniefoo.com/nostarch/HackingTheXbox_Free.pdf (first two pages, but the whole book is a good read)
In the US it seems especially bad, since Americans seem exceptionally obsessed with "living the American dream" aka making a lot of money. Many people assume that if you have a lot of money, you must be a good person.
That sounds like one of those things that people assume everybody else must think, but nobody actually thinks.
In a presidential election, for example.
This is in no way exclusive to Americans. In fact, from my admittedly limited experience, this is much more explicit in other cultures.
Politics is a totally different ball game. You basically must be wealthy to be successful in national politics (not necessarily in the Trump or Clinton stratospheres, but still need significant personal wealth and resources), and this is also the case in not-America as far as I can tell.
I'd say not a requirement in the Nordics. I'm sure it won't hurt though.
The talking point of "Would you rather trust someone who can't get promoted past a mid-level position in his company to play with the big boys, or someone who has managed his life such that he is in charge of things and has been able to accumulate vast personal resources?" is always going to be persuasive, IMO. "If he can't manage his own affairs..." and all that.
It's not an absolute non-starter, but I'm skeptical that any "regular Joe" would be elected for a significant national position as long as there are people who are massively more wealthy willing to compete (and there will be).
I don't have any data to back this up, but I have a feeling people tend to vote the same class as they are, with a hope that a similar candidate is better suited to understand their concerns. A working-class member would be very, very wary of voting anyone with wealth.
This is of course made possible with a true multi-party system. A businessman is a rare sight indeed within the ranks of (true) left-wing party.
I used to agree with that, but now politics has cleaved this into two.
A) If you're a democrat/progressive (Soros, Hillary, et al.) you're corrupt, greedy, immoral. And you got all that money via ill means. They must be stupid and anti-American be
B) If you're a republican (Trump, Murdoch, Ted Stevens, et al.) your earned it from picking up yourself by your bootstraps, the American Dream. And they must be smart people, they have lots of money!
And vice-versa.
As an aside, I'm increasingly seeing spammy "Soros is an anti-american progressive socialist communist" comments on other low quality forums. Which is interesting considering his investments, wealth, views on Russian, path to citizenship, and interest in helping economies move away from communism into capitalism. Post-truth, I guess.
(1) inheritance,
(2) something nefarious (greed, cheating, etc.)
(3) working hard and the equivalent of winning the lottery, being rewarded for that hard work
I don't think there's anyone who doesn't know that Trump inherited his wealth.