some ideas
Well, I've been reading a-lot of stuff tonight. I read a little in "Hegemony or Survival" again, I checked out this site, and was pleasantly surprised. I didn't know that such a creature existed. I strongly urge any of you who read my journal to check it out, for relief's sake. I also watched a little bit of the pep rally they call the Democratic National Convention tonight.
I've been trying to look at more "right-wing" stuff this evening to try and get a handle on its predominant issues. I've also been trying to get the dirt on Kerry. Unfortunately, I failed at both. I will continue to read the paper after I wake up and write things that I find important.
Kelly and I talked about our ideal government earlier. I think that we agreed on most stuff, but I'm starting to realize, the more and more that I talk, that I lean toward socialist-democracy. For example, I feel that the division of wealth between CEO's and common employee's should be around 10-15%. I also feel that educators and health care professionals should be at an even pay. Another point I thought of was that the division of wealth between all private sectors would only be around 10-15%.
There would be a great economic revival in the US if such a system could take place. I know it sounds hideous but give me some air for a moment. First, keep in mind that the same amount of money would be exchanging hands. It would just be in more hands. Let's say that 15% of our current executives makes around 100,000 to 150,000 per year. Let's also say that the average working class American currently makes about 20,000 to 30,000 per year. So, what you do is raise the lower-level by, say, 40%, which would bring it to 42,000, and lower the upper-level by 40% (from 150,000), bringing down to 90,000 per year. I haven't completely messed with these numbers, but I will kind of show how this would work. Basically, for every executive, with this math, you can pay 5 common workers 12,000 more per year. A lot of people have a hard time spending all of the dough that executives make, but they don't have a problem saving it or investing it. In contrast, the lower classes typically do not have any money to invest and do not usually have excess money in their banking accounts. The economy stands on all of these fronts. By dividing the wealth into more hands the private sector actually sees more consumer activity which will increase margin by supply and demand standards. Seeing the stocks rise will help the previous much lower in class invest in said stocks and raise the private sector further. This will create more pay and possibly more export activity. More pay means more money in the banks, also adding fuel to the economy.
but, I could be wrong, and I need someone to tell me why it is wrong. Also, keep in mind that my example did not account for the 10-15% margin between top & bottom. The example given was a 45% margin between wealth, so the benefits would be greater with a 10-15% margin. My belief is that the rise in the economy would raise income levels for the executives back to where they were before, or greater, with the influx of new consumers who were unable to take part in certain markets previously.
This is just my idea for economic equality, but I obviously have other ideas for environmental policy etc.
In other news. The Bush administration is trying to postpone the elections in the name of terrorism. Read about it here. If this happens, then terrorists have won by destroying democracy and disabling a two century long institution. Falling into Osama's hands at "our heroes" feet. The propaganda surrounding this is Orwellian, to say the least.
I'm off to bed.
I've been trying to look at more "right-wing" stuff this evening to try and get a handle on its predominant issues. I've also been trying to get the dirt on Kerry. Unfortunately, I failed at both. I will continue to read the paper after I wake up and write things that I find important.
Kelly and I talked about our ideal government earlier. I think that we agreed on most stuff, but I'm starting to realize, the more and more that I talk, that I lean toward socialist-democracy. For example, I feel that the division of wealth between CEO's and common employee's should be around 10-15%. I also feel that educators and health care professionals should be at an even pay. Another point I thought of was that the division of wealth between all private sectors would only be around 10-15%.
There would be a great economic revival in the US if such a system could take place. I know it sounds hideous but give me some air for a moment. First, keep in mind that the same amount of money would be exchanging hands. It would just be in more hands. Let's say that 15% of our current executives makes around 100,000 to 150,000 per year. Let's also say that the average working class American currently makes about 20,000 to 30,000 per year. So, what you do is raise the lower-level by, say, 40%, which would bring it to 42,000, and lower the upper-level by 40% (from 150,000), bringing down to 90,000 per year. I haven't completely messed with these numbers, but I will kind of show how this would work. Basically, for every executive, with this math, you can pay 5 common workers 12,000 more per year. A lot of people have a hard time spending all of the dough that executives make, but they don't have a problem saving it or investing it. In contrast, the lower classes typically do not have any money to invest and do not usually have excess money in their banking accounts. The economy stands on all of these fronts. By dividing the wealth into more hands the private sector actually sees more consumer activity which will increase margin by supply and demand standards. Seeing the stocks rise will help the previous much lower in class invest in said stocks and raise the private sector further. This will create more pay and possibly more export activity. More pay means more money in the banks, also adding fuel to the economy.
but, I could be wrong, and I need someone to tell me why it is wrong. Also, keep in mind that my example did not account for the 10-15% margin between top & bottom. The example given was a 45% margin between wealth, so the benefits would be greater with a 10-15% margin. My belief is that the rise in the economy would raise income levels for the executives back to where they were before, or greater, with the influx of new consumers who were unable to take part in certain markets previously.
This is just my idea for economic equality, but I obviously have other ideas for environmental policy etc.
In other news. The Bush administration is trying to postpone the elections in the name of terrorism. Read about it here. If this happens, then terrorists have won by destroying democracy and disabling a two century long institution. Falling into Osama's hands at "our heroes" feet. The propaganda surrounding this is Orwellian, to say the least.
I'm off to bed.