What satisfaction could any ruler of a country have when a vast majority of the people live in poverty?

Is there a successful nation without a middle-class? I am just amazed when I see the lifestyles of the rulers of nations when so many of their people live in squalor. What satisfaction can that really be? How would you even begin to feel powerful over starving people? It's no wonder people want to come to America, Canada, Australia, New Zeland......but are we as the citizens of these nations responsible to fix it? Where is the accountability of their government?

What satisfaction could any ruler of a country have when a vast majority of the people live in poverty?
No, there is no successful nation without a middle class. In fact, the most successful nations (measured by standard of living) have a large middle class (Switzerland; Sweden; etc.).





Your question ascribes moral values to despotic leaders that they do not have nor understand. Leaders like Kim, Castro, Saddam, etc. get off on their power and control. That is the only thing they consider. The fear and suffering of their people only serves as a reward for them.
Reply:politics pays well.
Reply:Their leaders don't care because they have no conscience. They take most of the revenue from the country to build their palaces and live the high life. One would think they'd enjoy respect gained from developing a well-functioning government and society, but the temptation to do otherwise is too great.
Reply:This mainly occurs in caste-based systems. The castes may be formal - something that is given as your identity at birth - or informal - related to a class that you expected to remain in for life.





The wealthy fell that they are wealthy due to some favoritism of a god or the universe or something like that. If other people are able to raise their status in society then it disproves this favoritism. Therefor the wealthy have a stake in ensuring that the poor remain poor. It's a weak self image of the wealthy.