Recently, I've been on a bit of a predictions kick. This was spurred by pictures of a lot of white animals showing up- White Deer, White Buffalo...etc. To the Plains Indians this is a fulfillment of their White Buffalo Woman prophecy. You can read about it here (http://www.nativevillage.org/Inspiration-/white_buffalo%20a%20living%20prophecy.htm)
The key take away from me is the idea that the white animals that have appeared at an appallingly high number indicate a very important sign. That sign basically is a choice between two different outcomes. One outcome is a major destructive event and an outcome that is not terribly pleasant. The other outcome is change on a broad scale environmentally, government wise and economically. This also reminds me of the Hopi Prophecy Rock prediction which I have shared before with a long YouTube Vidoe. In that pictograph is clear that there is one line (of the one heart) where it continues and they say the Great Spirit returns. The other option, the line of the Two Heart, leads to destruction. At one point there is a line joining the two paths which is a period when people could make the choice to change from the two heart path to the one heart path. You can read a brief article about this here: (http://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends-americas/hopi-prophecy-and-end-fourth-world-part-1-002280) In addition to that you have the channel Bashar. He described 2012 as a time period where we would make the individual decision to be on a certain 'train'. He described to different paths that the trains travel- one where it does not end up so good and one where it leads to what is considered a golden age. Further, when he talked about Atlantis he said those who lived during that time period are dealing with a similar circumstance where they will decide if they want destruction again or a change. Personally, I want change. I recently came across this video https://youtu.be/dfBSycK_hLM Economically As I researched Economics more and more the less I'm enthralled with our current system. Academics can claim basic Economics is some mathematical formula that those of us who can't follow it will never understand. However, it is clear how Banks actually work. There is absolutely no way to say they do not create money out of thin air. They give out credit based on the money that they are holding at the bank for other people. The people who the money belongs to can withdraw it at any time....but at the same time someone else who was given a loan already spent the money. That, rationally, means that the money that was in the loan is a second set that really honestly was created out of thin air. While some belly ache that such a system is fraudulent, that paper money (and digital money) have less viability than actual gold..I don't see the problem and I see it as opening up an entirely new door to new possibilities. Money has become more of an abstract metaphorical concept, representing the value of work performed, than it does anything else. The truth is, we trade our time and our energy for the paper or digital information that is downloaded to our bank account. We are receiving an abstract representation of something that does not have an actual physical existence. We then use that symbol to buy food and products. What I would love to see happen is a movement away from our current economic model with it's emphasis on constant unsustainable profit growth for investors (i.e. Wall Street). I wouldn't mind terribly if Wall Street was liquidated, with the people who made investments in the form of 401k's paid out and that decision that entire idea was just bad from the start. The misconceptions about the purpose of Wall Street and the unethical behavior of a few that exploit the system are reason enough for me...not to mention the need for constant profit growth year over year as a standard for a healthy company can be tossed out the window with very little impact on the average person. A Strange Idea Further, I would like to see a certain allotment in money given to each person at birth. That allotment would pretty much be akin to what is assumed a person needs to get by, just themselves, for the first portion of their life. That way they can afford to buy a home, a car and the other basic necessities to start a family and live comfortably working minimum wage. The person would receive the money when they turn eighteen. They could use it to go to college if they choose. They could buy a house if they choose instead of going to college. They could make the choice where they never really had to work but would live a very disciplined life on their initial amount trying not to run out of money while just scraping by without kids or extras. Or they could choose to work and depending on their choice they could live a different lifestyle and make a higher wage where they had a more comfortable living. I think it would completely negate the idea that some people start off with nothing and others have 'privileges' that give them advantages. Everyone would have a choice as to how they spend their money, everyone would start off with equal footing, and the person would choose what they would do with it. Of course, then people will wonder about inheritance and what not. They would say that the people born of those who had extra money they could pass down would have an unequal advantage. I don't believe that because those people suffer the loss of their parents and that's tragic. I think it's wonderful that parents would leave money to their children to make their lives easier and that everyone should strive to do so for their children and grandchildren. Again, that would be a choice and I think it would be fair if such large sums were metered out so that the children did not receive them in a lump sum. Politics Personally, I believe that we live in the most spiritually absent and morally corrupt time when it comes to politics. In the past politicians had the decency to at least pretend they were good people who were morally upright with a stable home life. Now, we have politicians making a spectacle of their race and gender. I'm proud that we do have a larger variety of people in this election then we ever had before of many races and genders. I love that we have out of the box candidates like Trump and Sanders running. Then we have non-traditional but more normal candidates such as Clinton (Female) and Carson (African American). In fact the one traditional candidate, Jeb Bush, seems to have been kicked to the curb early on by voters and I think that's awesome. The election of 2016 seems as though it will be historic if just for that reason. That said, as far as celebrities and politicians go...the United States has chosen people who might have a lot of personality and behave widely...but morals seem to be lacking. We seem to be more interested in being entertained then having good strong leaders in any field whether it's entertainment or politics. The wonderfully brilliant role models of yesterday are strangely missing from News Headlines. Those awesome inspiring role models that are out there, Neil Degrasse Tyson and Ceasar Milan for example, don't get half of the attention they deserve. To me, the role models and the hero's that society is proffering and pushing on people today is a troubling sign of an unhealthy population. Conclusion These are just ideas I'm tossing out into the Universe. I think we live in exciting times. I am curious to see if anything incredible does happen in the next five years. I'd love to think that by 2020 things will be incredibly different economically and politically in a positive way. I hope we don't continue to focus on what separate's us whether it's economic, skin color or religion. I would love to see intelligent brilliant people getting the spot light and attention they deserve instead of the sensationalist drama queens. I'd like to see an end to the endless war in the Middle East. I'd he happy if the Blue Kachina of the Hopi legend danced before the uninitiated children causing everyone to be shocked and lose all faith for a time. Whatever shocks the entire world into realizing that our differences amount to nothing uniting us as one is welcomed by me. I don't want this world to be rescued by some other race of intelligent beings or even God. I don't want to see the world destroyed or mankind destroyed as we have achieved so much. I believe that we have the ability and ingenuity to undo any harm we have done if we work together. I'd like to see us create our way out of the current chaos into something new and sublime.
0 Comments
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." ~John F. Kennedy (1961)
Introduction In the United States our Economy has been facing issues for years. Wages have been stagnant since the 1970's (35 years) and in some cases they have dropped. Check out the documentary Inequality For All where an expert describes the situation. Middle Class families of the United States of America adapted to these stagnant wages. First, mom went out to make money to make up for the increase in wages that dad did not see. Then both mom and dad worked as many hours as possible to maintain the "American Dream." Finally, to maintain their lifestyle people lucky enough to qualify for a mortgage for a home borrowed against it to maintain their lifestyle. The options, however, have run out. As minimum wage is raised so that the gap between minimum income and middle wage income becomes negligible more people will become unhappy with the state of the economy. If there is a 'beast' in this world it is certainly the Corporation where an employee is disposable, assigned only a number, and these 'legal entities' are not held by the Public to moral and ethical standards to which we would hold any other individual in this nation. In fact, we might even go so far to say that successful corporations, such as Apple, are worshiped. Further, in our current society it is the Corporation or Business that employs a person that is expected to punish an employee if they make controversial statements or display controversial ethical behavior outside of the workplace. First, and foremost, the fact that we have evolved into a society that pays entertainers- Sports Athletes and Hollywood Stars- an absurd amount of money compared to everyone else in society says something about our priorities. We value entertainment the most. However, we must remove this group of people when we are talking about economics because they are the exception to the rule. We need to take a look at ordinary people and a teacher, for example, should not compare their wage to that of an actor or actress because there are far more teachers then entertainers. Now, we need to look to the old traditional views of how to 'fix' this situation... Unions/Flat Equality For All The Documentary Inequality For All seems to suggest that Unions are the answer. I disagree. Today, Unions have been busted, their power to influence companies are minuscule. They are political advocacy group (Democrat) that negotiates for good medical benefits for their members and no more. The days of the Union are over. Even with Democrats in office they have little influence over the companies with whom they negotiate. Further, the answer to our economic problems does not lie in everyone having the same wage. As the failure of Socialism/Communism has indicated and the recent plight of Gravity Payments owner Dan Price realized...if everyone is paid the same income productivity will be stymied. The reason is that not all employees exert the same amount of effort at work so pay needs to be based on their productivity. Yet, this basic formula of Productivity = Income is currently ignored, for the most part, in business. The problem is, there are so many potential employees out there that will work for whatever wage a company sets that companies haven't faced a labor shortage. A few years ago there was a looming labor shortage. The baby boomers retiring should have resulted in a wage re-evaluation for every business...but it didn't happen. Why? The U.S. Government and companies solicited and then eased the process for educated immigrants from other countries (and uneducated immigrants for lower income jobs) to enter the U.S. to prevent the labor shortage. This short circuited what would have been a natural resetting of labor market wages as our country adjusted to a lower amount of citizens. The main motivation, perhaps, was to continue public assistance programs such as Social Security, Welfare and Food Stamps. The smaller generations could not support the retired baby boomers so immigrants were brought in to make up the difference...but there is another problem...not many people from the baby boomer generation retired leading to a surplus in labor. This surplus has actually pushed wages lower in fields such as long distance trucking. If the government can't force an equal pay grade across the board for certain jobs without killing productivity and Unions are ineffectual in this environment...what could possibly be the answer? Wall Street Occupy Wall Street was an extremely ignorant group. Although they were supposedly college students they were clearly not business students. The movement clearly did not understand how the stock market works or who owns stocks. Original entrepreneurs who start off as business owners tend to be the ones who own more stocks. The cycle starts when a successful small company decides they need money to grow their business. That's why companies go onto the stock market. The companies then take the capital that they are given by investors, reinvest it into their company and grow their business to the point where they can become global. Wall Street and the Stock Market serve the purpose of developing more money for start up companies to grow by making it easy for people to invest in the companies. The Stock Market does serve a very important role. However, the claims that those people with millions will start other companies is false. They usually do reinvest the money in other startups but that doesn't necessarily lead to more jobs. Few of them start second or third companies directly using their money. Therefore, the only benefit to not taxing them an appropriate amount is seen in Wall Street. The Stock Market is a self serving sector that is protected by our government and corporations alike. The Problem With Wall Street There is no denying that Wall Street is important. However, the problem is that companies never leave the Stock Market even when they reach the point where an established company cannot grow further or that "growing" profit is ridiculous. At this point the companies should go back to being private. This should be a default situation when a company cannot continue to make the hand over fist money that investors demand. The evidence is found when you hear that companies are buying other companies. This happens when a businesses has grown to the point where simply opening more locations throughout the globe does not bring in the profit to satisfy Stockholders. They can only grow their value by buying more 'capital' (land, other companies- physical property). When companies ignorantly stay Public after they have reached Market Saturation and no longer have options for growth the companies ship as much of their company's production over seas for cheaper labor. Corporations begin firing employees to continue to meet profit margins demanded by investors and assigning more responsibilities to the employees. They drop bonuses and, in extreme cases, dock wages in order to keep showing a significant profit over the last year. When, if they were private, they would be happily in the green zone of dependable profitability with no valid reason for justifying huge profit growth. At this point logic would suggest that these companies should leave Public Trading. There should be laws to ensure that they do this or at the very least a tradition in business. However, in earning my Masters in Business Administration there was no suggestion that a company should go back to being private or when that would be the most logical choice. Businesses, in academia and in practice, do not look at how unfeasible, illogical and downright morally corrupt it is to keep a business on the Stock Market after growth has been maximized. They, meaning the executives that make the decision, do not look at it logically as a temporary tool. The Constant Profit Problem Logically, if you follow the business model from Start Up, to going Public, to Expanding...there must be a time when a company reaches maximum profitability. The problem is, in academia and business circles, this apparently logical conclusion is not considered. Instead, companies have an idea that they need to push profit every year. They must see a percentage increase every year over the prior year in order to make their shareholders happy. Companies that have existed for decades or even a hundred years follow this concept. Private companies can also be this way but such companies are short lived because they cannot keep managers or employees. I've heard owners claim that they are Wolves devouring Sheep by using techniques to take as much money from people as possible. In big corporations this concept is even worse as the person can say that what they do, even if unethical, is for the benefit of the profit, and therefore existence, of their company and therefore justified. There is far less personal responsibility to decide that there is enough profit that wages for employees can be raised appropriately to compensate them for the companies success. Instead, the focus in publicly traded corporations, is to produce that profit for shareholders. In fact, increasing share holder profitability is almost always included in the Mission Statement of a Publicly Traded Corporation (in other words companies on the stock market). Demanding Morality From Corporations In the United States we have done the strangest thing. Corporations are their own legal entity. They are treated as a person, much as you or I would be treated, by the court. At this point, in academia and in practice (especially those on the Stock Market) Corporations are profit hungry beasts. Their matrix's and quarterly reports do not have a single line dedicated to the well being of the humans working within the company. Employee satisfaction is only evaluated to ensure that employees are as productive as possible to increase that profitability. Often times, these results are fabricated by individual managers that receive bonuses based on the 'satisfaction level' of their employees. I don't care if an individual is flesh and blood, an intelligent computer or a Corporation. However, as we demand morality from each other how much more important is it that we hold companies to ethical and moral standards? Those moral and ethical standards include a 'Living Wage'. We need to stop looking to government to raise the minimum wage which continues to decimate the middle class. Raising minimum wage doesn't cause companies to raise all of the wages, only their lowest earners, and causes those who are making a small amount above that to experience more economic problems. Unions tend to represent these minimum wage workers as well so they are not the answer here, either. The companies, morally, should provide a wage that is adjusted for inflation and cost of living. The wages should reflect the profitability of the company with the employee. The more profitable the company the higher the wages within that company should be compared to similar less successful companies in the same industry. However, in the realm of business, stagnating and reducing wages is considered good. Profit in other areas can be made if the employee is neglected and that profit is then given to majority shareholders to maintain the companies status on the Stock Market. Company's have a moral responsibility to their employees and that should be their priority- not satisfying majority Stock Holders indefinitely. We need to demand morality from the companies that we buy our products from. A company that will turn their backs on loyal employees to increase their profit margins should be punished- but not by the Government. We Are The Most Important Investors. Every time you buy a product you are investing in a company. Corporations make it clear the buyer is King or Queen. That is how you punish a company that lacks ethics and morality. You simply do not buy their product or frequent their stores. The Walmart Example I do not shop at Walmart. The reason I do not and will never frequent a Walmart store is because I researched the company for a college presentation. The way that they have negatively impacted smaller companies with their Price Setting caused me to decide their practices do not benefit the United States. Not only do they fail to pay their employees a good wage but they have a chain effect on the producers of the items they sell. Walmart is not just morally corrupt with their own employees but they effectively control the companies that provide their products. With, over four million products Walmart affects a large amount of companies. If we assume that each of those companies have only one hundred employees (a tiny amount) they negatively impact the wages of Four Hundred and Twenty Six Million Jobs. Let me say that again, Walmart effectively controls the wages of more then Four Hundred and Twenty Six Million Jobs by Price Setting that do not even work for them. Walmart alone employs 1.3 million people. What We Can Do People always wonder what they can do to fix a vast complex system. Realize that you help keep these 'corrupt' systems in place based on how you spend your money. Your buying power is what truly runs the economy. There are two areas that companies invest money in studying- how to attract buyers and increase employee productivity. If we buy items based on moral reasons or to push companies towards becoming private again in a bid to make them stop pushing for constant Herculean profit growth at the expense of their employees we can make them change. If their profit crashes, for whatever reason, they will move to meet the demands of buyers.  Walmart Example Here is a basic example how this could be done. A group could be organized (like Occupy) where there is a formal reason given for choosing not to shop somewhere. Demanding that Walmart leave Public Trading and take the money were giving investors and raise All employees wages in the company by at least 20% except the Executives. We can also demand that they raise the amount they pay their suppliers so they can also raise their wages by 20%. Then we simply do not shop at Walmart for two weeks. We state that it's going to be a short amount of time because we do not want to destroy the company. We don't want to hurt the employees, we are just sending a message. If that doesn't work, then we extend it to a month. These brief times without profit will negatively impact their profit and failure to act will generate a lot of negative press. Their profitably will be negatively impacted long term if they do not respond in an acceptable way. In this way we can effectively raise the wage and standard of living for Four Hundred and Twenty Seven MILLION people. Think about it. Conclusion The problem with our economy isn't that people aren't spending money. The problem isn't 'Corporate Greed.' The problem lies in hungry beastly companies/corporations that are their own legal entities that are not held to moral or ethical standards by US- The United States Citizens. Luckily, that same hunger for profit is how we can change the system and demand that companies live up to their moral and ethical responsibility. By using the power of our spending money we send them organized messages demanding they change their ways. This doesn't involve violence. Only empty parking lots, and empty stores. The goal isn't to destroy the company but to encourage them to change their policies and practices. To force them to go private and focus more on being a profitable place for their employees to work and not large profits for shareholders. To change businesses or corporations we must speak their language. If you want to change how the Economy works and increase the wages for millions of people one simple act such as I described can send a strong message causing a cascade effect. We can't expect Government to do this, their place is in governing not setting business policy. We can't expect companies to change a system that seems to be working for them. We must behave in the way that will cause the change we want to see in the United States Economy.  In the brave new world of a global economy, aside from a world government, the only people who can determine what Corporations or Businesses do is the average citizen thoughtfully picking and choosing where to spend their money. We need to peel back the gloss of sleek advertising and look at the actual operation of the companies from which we buy. I'd love to see the information on Glass Ceiling about work place environment translated to a website that gives a synopsis of how that company treats it's employees so that buyers understand the true nature of a company. Instead of just looking to save a dime, we should think about how our choice of how we spend that dime can impact millions of lives...including our own. Isn't it strange that we wouldn't think twice about giving that dime to a homeless person but we will do anything to 'save' it from a business? References Below is a trailer for Inequality for All. This documentary is currently on Netflix. (Note: this is an unedited post)
There has been a lot of talk about income inequality recently. Economics in the United States are not simple but a very complicated system if studied from the Academic level. Simple answers probably won't solve the problems. The problem, from what I see, is that we abandoned having a completely Capitalist society sometime after the Great Depression. Subsequently, we've had a semi-socialist system with some people (qualifying as poor, disabled or elderly) receiving money from the government An entirely Capitalist society wouldn't have that but an entirely Socialist economy wouldn't allow for the diversity in businesses and companies that we once had in the United States (a good portion of the industrial and manufacturing components have gone to other countries). This has also played into proponents of Socialism as they can now say (in fact Bernie Sanders flat out did say it) that all of the horrors that Socialism were supposed to have brought occurred under Capitalisim. This pseudo-capitalist/socialist society process that Government has taken has been with the blessing of a majority of people who want government help. These people, as some say, vote for their incomes. In a competitive society where the morally incline often lose to the people who will give money to certain people/corporations it seems to be common practice and as one political student once told me, "The ends justify the means." While it's worrying enough that a lot of people are curiously leaning towards the idea of Capitalism despite the poor examples of what happens when a country goes that way (who in the US would trade living here for a life in Cuba or North Korea?)...it's interesting that corporations are not really mentioned. The truth is, corporations and businesses have been branded as bad guys for decades now. I, however, see corporations in a different light. I believe that the current way of doing business is wrong but only corporations are able to fix the economic mess by changing their policies. Further, consumers have more control over corporations then they realize and can 'vote' for corporations they believe in by being selective on what brands, stores and companies that they spend their money on. Corporations As The Bad Guy This idea emerged in the nineties. The big baddies of them all being the 'banks and oil cartels' as conspiracy theorists love to say. The general belief in the populace is that companies are greedy, exploit humans to make a profit, and exist only to reward their owners with millions at the expense of the common person. (Note: most people don't think of businesses/corporations from the economic viewpoint of the company existing to fulfill a need and that by an almost natural selection basis those that are not needed do not survive). This idea is further spurred by the Governments bail out of certain banks that were 'too big to fail.' Despite a significant amount of money being channeled to the banks the average consumer found that their bank accounts were suddenly more expensive and the charges increased. The consumer, in effect, paid twice to save financial institutions that should have failed in a Capitalist system. The result is that most people view huge corporations the same way they view the government. (I will just call them the 'Difficult Customers' from here on out) Corporations are faceless creatures to be exhorted, taken advantage of and cheated because they have endless money and can 'absorb' losses. These people, in their mind, honestly don't connect that stealing from a company is going to hurt the employees of the company. By cheating the company in some way they feel that they are standing up against 'The Man.' This attitude spans all of the races and classes. Even people with a lot of money to spend with their black credit cards try to get a 'better deal' out of frontline customer service employees. The employees are also bitter and feel that corporations take advantage of them. Just take a look at fast food workers. Assigned a number and required uniforms that make them appear like everyone else they are essentially robbed of their identity at work. Add to that the concept that 'The Customer is always right' thought process coupled with 'An employee must protect the companies assets' and you have a very conflicted message sent to the employee. While attempting to fulfill their duty to ensure their paycheck they must act as subservient robots experiencing only joy...even when the customer lies or makes false allegations in an attempt to receive free compensation. Take for example a Taco Bell manager in the news recently. He dropped off his car for repairs and was upset when two of the dealership employees wound up in this drive through in his vehicle when taking it on a test drive. First, the employees were exploiting their company policy of test drives to buy lunch...which resulted in their termination. Second, despite being given hundred of dollars of repairs to his car for free the Taco Bell manager whined to the News despite the fact he ruined two employees lives by having them fired and getting free car repairs at the expense of the dealership. (NOTE:, Is it me or does it seem that Fast Food Workers are the most disgruntled and unhappy individuals getting the most attention in media?) New York Stock Exchange I'm not a huge fan of the New York Stock Exchange. I have stocks in companies, it's true, but they aren't worth much. The average joe will not make a fortune on the Stock Exchange. Not to mention, and as the Wolf of Wall Street suggests, it takes a certain amount evil for people to work in that environment successfully. The Stock Exchange system appears to benefit only the rich, who have a lot of money to invest already, and doesn't benefit that average consumer or low income stockholders (that can't afford a controlling portion of the stock to have a sya in the companies direction). To think that owning a small portion of a companies stock makes you an owner or partner is nonsense. The sense can be given to the employees that by having stocks in the company they are partial owners and the illusion that by ensuring the company prospers they prosper but it's not the reality. No one will notice if they sell their stocks unless it's done en masse. Companies go onto the New York Stock Exchange to grow revenue they can then invest in expanding the company. This can be a major boon for the company providing them with a lot of money and spring boarding them into a world market. The problem is, most companies never leave the New York Stock Exchange and become held in a position where they must constantly increase the profit of their shareholders (profit that could instead go to compensating employees). Further, the concept that companies can grow forever is simply illogical. While the need to innovate is important...constantly growing profits for investors is not something that is going to be feasible forever. Eventually, a company will hit it's maximum amount of profit. Companies constantly raise prices. If women had not gone out into the workforce along with their husbands forming two family incomes it's doubtful that the continuous trend of raising prices would have worked. However, in order to live a life style equal to their parents (albeit with a few more electrical items that are helpful) two people must work. The result is two incomes equal the same life style one person with a skilled income could afford a generation ago. Companies, meanwhile, haven't skipped a beat in raking in as much profit as possible. The companies that are able to increase their profit (some aiming for 100%) are praised by the media and people in general as a success. Companies that do not grow to be household names are not considered complete successes. This, I believe, is the reason for the 'income inequality' we see in the United States more then anything else. A combination of companies ever seeking to push profits higher and people willingly figuring out ways to pay those higher prices. There should be a point where companies go off of the New York Stock Exchange. The owners should realize they have enough capital to live comfortably and give a legacy to their kids. That companies have reached their potential. The money that was going to stock holders then could be redirected to employees. This, however, only rarely happens. Raising Minimum Wage Doesn't Work Companies exist to make a profit (at the very least to allow the owners to make enough money that they can take home a paycheck). To make that profit they must take in more money then they spend on basic costs (employees, facilities, etc.) This is just a basic concept and the most simple. When the minimum wage rises prices rise because every company has some sort of minimum wage worker on their most basic level of operations. To give those people, often the largest amount of workers, an increase in pay the money has to come from somewhere and still leave the company with a profit of some kind. Naturally, prices go up. Sadly, for the workers that are not minimum wage, wages do not go up to compensate. Instead, they find themselves in the lower income brackets. Neither does the tax code recognize that the disparity between minimum wage workers and those who make a little more then them shrinking. Therefore, the minimum wage workers go into a higher tax bracket and despite costs going up along with no increase in pay the middle class is taxed the same amount leaving them with less money. Add into the mix Stockholders demanding even more profit from the previous year from a smaller amount of revenue and of course you're not going to see the Middle Class income being adjusted to compensate. Instead, if anything, Middle Class wages will go down because now the company can't afford the same amount of hours that they could before or the amount of employees they had before the Minimum Wage Increase. Clearly, when looking at the system with a logical eye (and no tolerance of dogma or rhetoric from Academics) we can see why the Middle Class continues to diminish in this country. Conclusion While this essay indicates that the poor economy of the United States is mostly due to a New York Stock Exchange Corporate Policy and mishandling by the Government in the form of raising minimum wage....there is a way to fix the problem. The 'cure' doesn't involve government at all. The government, really, should be more concerned with fixing their tremendously complex nightmare inducing tax code then 'fixing wages'. The solution comes from consumers. Consumers can put pressure on the corporations with their buying power. All it would take would be a little knowledge. In my next blog I will go over my idea for this solution, how it works, how it empowers people, and how the people of this government can save themselves instead of looking to socialism or the government to save them. After all, in the history of this world when people look to their government for leaders with radical ideas that will take them out of economic downturns tyrants are the ones who usually feel the need to step up to the plate. |
Author:
Thank You For Visiting
Brave Soul! May Your Journey On The Path Of The Seeker Bring You Joy and Peace! I'm currently posting every Saturday. With a new addition the family I have pre-scheduled most posts through December 2022. Full Moon Posts will contain up-to-date content when I can get to them. Thank you so much for your support and understanding! This is a place where you can encounter new spiritual ideas that have helped me develop as an Individual On The Path of the Seeker. Take or Leave this information as you see fit. Archives
April 2024
|