Small businesses should be able to compete with big businesses. They have been unable to for some time. Big businesses took over the USA economy, such that the system of government is more similar to as oligarchy than a democracy. An oligarchy is a small group of people that make all the decisions in the country. I propose that the USA oligarchy has far too much power in Washington.
The USA oligarchy has an inordinate amount of power, and we will see this in the next election, as media is always slanted. The lobbyists in Washington of this oligarchy essentially have the power to control legislation through monetary influence, and it has the power to correct the many trillions of dollar debt in a short time, but it is not doing so, no thanks to the legislature.
It is not that I say, "If you are rich, then you are a bad person." Many wealthy individuals are good people. However, this wealth has the potential for abuses, such as how the Koch brothers are trying to buy the legislature.
The USA oligarchy to which I refer largely consists of those companies in the Fortune 500. In fact, this oligarchy probably has the power to make President Barrack Obama popular or unpopular based upon its whims.
Who can know the extent of Wal-Mart’s power, and companies like it? Right now, it is a guessing game, but there are those, such as Bernie Sanders, that report this power is far too great and are angry because of it.
Who then should pay most of the taxes? I suggest that the businesses in power, particularly the Fortune 1,000 should pay virtually all of the taxes. This is a radical reform, but they are the ones that hold the money, and they are the ones who dominate. It takes big government to protect big business, so we should turn to the people who the government does the most for. That is only fair.
Showing posts with label oligarchy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oligarchy. Show all posts
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
On $300,000 a Year Salary Caps to Level the Economic Playing Field
I don’t hate people who succeed. By all means, succeed, everyone should for success, but if only the rich are successful, then we haven’t achieved maximum success. When people who work for the rich are also as happy as the rich that means a greater happiness has been achieved. If we leave behind that deserve more, it causes a ripple effect, magnifying unhappiness throughout the nation, and world. I understand that riches don’t always equate to happiness, but when families don’t have enough money, it ends up putting stress on them, and often breaks them up. Truly, money must be coordinated with happiness at least a little. Rich people can suffer from depression. And, I am aware that all the money in the world can’t buy happiness. Additionally, I am not for raising the minimum wage. However, in order to make the wealth redistribution happen, it would require effort on the part of the state to ensure that nobody is making more than $300,000 a year.
The big question some may have is: Why?
I believe that there is nothing any human being should be able to do and to earn more than $300,000 a year for it. Hopefully, demand alone would then change the scale of our economy and prevent the devaluation of the dollar. Really, bread should cost 5 cents a loaf. The higher prices get, the more people can’t do the necessary math, such that I am trying to prevent people from being sloppy with money.
For leveling the financial playing field, I do not want to be accused of jealousy. Naturally, some will be able to make more than others, and naturally some will be able to spend more wisely than others. This does not bother me. I am not jealous of how much money the rich have. For all I know, I may be rich in my generation simply because my family has no unpaid debts.
What bothers me is the greed of the oligarchy of capitalists. A part of the reason I believe that the $300,000 rule is good is because it will take the wind out of the sails of the greedy. People should work because they want to work, out of zest for their career, and not for the sake of earning more money. I was told, “Go to school for education, not for the money you might get.” It will make room for smaller companies that currently aren’t able to crack into the terse economic crust, giving them a chance. Truly, this oligarchy has prevented the fruition of some really good business ideas.
What I have is not envy of the rich. It is altruistic desire. Envy is far closer to covetousness than plain old desire. And, my desire is altruistic as I have no business in mind that I want to start, only wishing to level the playing field in order that competition should be fair for aspiring entrepreneurs. As far as the self and selflessness debate goes, I do believe that there can be self in altruism. For example, sometimes it is wise to conserve one’s own self, such that he or she will be able to give more at a later date.
The big question some may have is: Why?
I believe that there is nothing any human being should be able to do and to earn more than $300,000 a year for it. Hopefully, demand alone would then change the scale of our economy and prevent the devaluation of the dollar. Really, bread should cost 5 cents a loaf. The higher prices get, the more people can’t do the necessary math, such that I am trying to prevent people from being sloppy with money.
For leveling the financial playing field, I do not want to be accused of jealousy. Naturally, some will be able to make more than others, and naturally some will be able to spend more wisely than others. This does not bother me. I am not jealous of how much money the rich have. For all I know, I may be rich in my generation simply because my family has no unpaid debts.
What bothers me is the greed of the oligarchy of capitalists. A part of the reason I believe that the $300,000 rule is good is because it will take the wind out of the sails of the greedy. People should work because they want to work, out of zest for their career, and not for the sake of earning more money. I was told, “Go to school for education, not for the money you might get.” It will make room for smaller companies that currently aren’t able to crack into the terse economic crust, giving them a chance. Truly, this oligarchy has prevented the fruition of some really good business ideas.
What I have is not envy of the rich. It is altruistic desire. Envy is far closer to covetousness than plain old desire. And, my desire is altruistic as I have no business in mind that I want to start, only wishing to level the playing field in order that competition should be fair for aspiring entrepreneurs. As far as the self and selflessness debate goes, I do believe that there can be self in altruism. For example, sometimes it is wise to conserve one’s own self, such that he or she will be able to give more at a later date.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)