The 200 year experiment has failed. While we have shown that large businesses with centralized mass production reduce the cost of producing goods, we have failed to show that they reduce the prices of goods. Mass production is good and useful. When done properly, it decreases production costs and increases quality. Centralizing mass production has not been good or useful. Centralized production requires robust transportation fleets, which are expensive in fuel, time, and maintenance of both vehicles and roads. The failure of the experiment, however, is not related to transportation costs. The experiment has failed due to greed and corruption.
Large companies have slowly robbed their employees and customers more and more. With this ill gotten gain, they have paid our government to make laws that give them even more power. We now live in a nation of slaves and slavers. The majority of us are slaves, while the rest are the slavers. There is no middle ground. Most of the people in the US work to produce enormous profits and are then paid only enough for room and board, while the profits they have worked so hard for go to some CEO or other person that does less work than they do. The people are now rebelling, but our government does not even know what to do, because they have never thought about how to best serve the people they govern. I have some suggestions.
I propose a wage cap. Presuming the average adult needs 8 hours of sleep a day and that this leaves them with 16 hours during the day that they could work, and presuming that the average person is capable of working like this 6 days a week, a person cannot reasonably work more than 5,000 hours in a year. Also presuming that a well trained individual can do work valued at over 10 times what the average McDonald's employee's work is worth, it might be reasonable to say that this individual should be paid $100 an hour. Given this, this person could earn $500,000 a year. If you want to argue that the work of the McDonald's worker is worth less than 10 times the trained individual, then the trained person cannot eat fast food and then shall only be able to work 13 hours a day, since he now has to spend 1 hour per meal in preparation time. So, I propose that a maximum wage be mandated that prohibits payment of more than $500,000 in combined wages and benefits per year per person. This is enough money for anyone in the US to survive quite comfortably, and it would affect less than 5% of the population.
In addition, I propose a profit cap for businesses. This should be a percentage and should represent a reasonable profit margin, that cannot be considered extortion (there should also be a fairly large maximum dollar amount, to limit the size and influence of businesses). Costs for maintenance and replacement equipment can be taken from the total profits, but research and expansion costs should not be (they must be counted as profits). Elective costs should also not be subtracted from profits, including charitable donations (it is unethical for a company to donate money that was generated by their workers). If a company generates more profits than are allowed, those profits should be equally distributed among employees (that have not reached their maximum wage) and a fine should be charged against the remaining profits (a company may instead choose to distribute before filing taxes to avoid the fine).
These two things would make a huge difference in distribution of wealth. Large businesses would be paying much less to officers, because of the wage cap. The profit cap would require the businesses to do something with this money and the rest of their overages, that does not directly benefit the company and that does not just get rid of it to charities. The only options would be to either use the money to pay the employees fairly, or reduce prices dramatically to avoid the overages in the first place. Either of these would be good. The first would directly ensure that employees get a fair share of the profits. The second would increase the value of the US dollar so much that even current minimum wage would be quite lucrative pay. In addition, many workers could cut their work hours, opening up jobs for the 9% of unemployed Americans.
An interesting side note: Those who already have large amounts of wealth would also benefit greatly from the second scenario (prices dropping), as the value of their accumulated wealth would double, triple, or even better.
I realize that this solution has some holes. The actual legislation would need to carefully address the question of exactly what costs a company can exclude from their profits, to avoid holes that would allow companies to use overages in ways that would not benefit the employees. The wage cap legislation would have to also avoid loopholes that would allow any form of compensation to not be counted in the cap. I am neither a lawyer nor a politician, so I am not qualified to actually draft this legislation, but I do feel that I am qualified to suggest a good framework that could be used in drafting legislation, by those who we pay to do that job.
I believe that this particular course of action would not only solve the distribution of wealth problem, but I believe that it would also solve most of the problems with our economy as well. It could potentially double the value of the US dollar, making us a real contender in the world economy again. It could put many Americans into higher tax brackets, which would solve the budget issues with our government (or at least make them less severe). Fixing the distribution of wealth problem would create more jobs (fewer people would need to work multiple jobs, some people would choose to work only part time, and many people would start small businesses), potentially entirely eliminating the 9% unemployment we are currently facing.
It is certain something needs to be done. As I have mentioned, I believe that we are on the brink of revolution, especially if the government does not act quickly to fix these problems. I believe this solution would fix a great number of our current problems. It would affect our capitalist economy (which, in case you missed it, is failing) by slowing expansion and limiting rates of gain, but it would not replace it will a more oppressive system, nor would it interfere with it significantly. This would benefit a vast majority of the US population, and those who did not benefit would not be significantly harmed. We need to do something, and I think that this solution would fix the most urgent problems the most quickly and the most permanently.
Lord Rybec
25 October 2011
What's it Worth?
There are many different types of value. Humans perceive value based on usefulness, need, rarity, mental stimulation, work or resources that went into an object, age, and many other factors. Probably the biggest factor of real value is need. What value is a big screen TV when you are starving the death? Usefulness and cost of production are also very strong factors of real value. Humans have invented another factor of value though. The phrase, "It is only worth what people are willing to pay," has been misconstrued to mean that the value of a thing is the highest price people are willing to pay for it.
The phrase, "It is only worth what people are willing to pay," was originally intended to convey the fact that an object which is appraised at a high value is only really worth that if you can find someone willing to pay that price for it. It was not intended to mean that it is ethical to charge any amount of money for an object, if someone is willing to pay that much. In fact, the US has anti-extortion laws to prevent businesses from taking advantage of shortages of goods needed for survival by raising prices (laws which have not been enforced during the last few disasters of sorts that those laws were created to cover).
I find that the most ethical method of determining value of goods for sale is to base the price on the cost of production. If a device costs $50 in parts and labor to produce, then that device should not be priced at $1,000. If it is, then it is extortion and theft. Of course, if the production of that device requires expensive equipment, then the cost of the device should reflect that, but it is still not ethical to make the first 100 customers pay for the manufacturing equipment and then keep the excessive profits from future sales.
There are many industries that abuse capitalism in ways that rip off the customer. Companies that produce electronic media are a major contender for the least ethical business practices. Electronic media is especially easy to do this with, because it only has to be produced once and then unlimited numbers of copies can be made at almost no additional cost. A music artist may spend 320 hours (2 months at 40 hours a week) composing a new album. The artist might then spend 20 hours recording all the tracks. Several people (3 maybe) at the studio will also be working to record the album and they might then spend 20 hours editing the tracks and mastering the first copy of the album. The record label might spend 100 hours working on advertising and pay some radio stations or TV stations for advertising time. The label will then copy the master onto thousands or millions of CDs. After this, people or stores will order the CDs, but they will pay shipping and handling, so the label does not have to worry about that. If each person involved gets paid $50 an hour (which I doubt), then the total labor costs through creating the master comes out to $25,000. The cost of the actual CDs (let's say 500,000) probably comes out to less than $50,000 (10 cents a piece is probably a high estimate). If each CD sells for $15 and the record label gets $10 from each, that comes out to $5 million. Presuming $500,000 in advertising costs, the company spent $575,000 on the entire thing and just made nearly 10 times that back. That is 1,000% return. That is absurd, especially given that the stores only made a 50% profit. Worse though, if the CD sells well, then the record company can quickly make another 500,000 copies for less than $50,000 and make another $5 million, at a 10,000% rate of return. Right, some money goes to royalties, but the pathetic rate of royalties for nearly any form of media is negligible (ever wondered why many musical artists keep going on tour, even when they have repeatedly stated how much they hate it). Why do we let the companies keep charging us for a product when society has already paid back several times what it cost to produce? This is extortion. Continuing to charge for a product that has already been paid for is theft.
It is not just media companies that do this though. Whenever new technology comes out, prices start very high. They generally slowly drop over time, but not at the rate they should. I understand that the cost of research and development has to be paid. This does not bother me. Once it is paid off though, quit charging us for it. New computer technology can take years to perfect. A lot of money goes into research. When it is finally ready, the prices are necessarily high. Most technology research is paid off within the first year after release. Somehow, even though devices like laptops only cost $50 to $100 to manufacture, we are still being charged $1,000 or more five or ten years later. When I found out about the low cost of manufacturing laptop computers, the technology was 5 years old. Now, 3 or 4 years later, the prices are finally dropping to more reasonable rates (though, $200 from $50 is still 400% return). The funny thing though is that they are not even using the old, cheaper technology. The new laptops are using new technology, which leads me to believe that $50 a piece was a high estimate and that modern laptops cost more like $25 (or less) to make, which means the return on a $200 laptop is 800%, which is still extortion.
Most of the world may disagree with me, but I am here to say: Charging the highest prices people are willing to pay is not ethical. Cheating people because they don't know better or because they are desperate is wrong. The value of merchandise should be based on how much it cost to produce, not on some math that maximizes profits but puts it out of the budget of people who really need it. What happens to those people that need food, but the math excludes their budget? Ever wonder why so many people need welfare just so they can afford to eat? Charging more than the poor can afford for food just to get a few extra dollars is evil and wrong. People are going hungry in the US because businesses have convinced us that it is ethical to rip off anyone who can afford to pay. It is not ethical to base prices on what people can afford. This is what is destroying our economy.
Lord Rybec
The phrase, "It is only worth what people are willing to pay," was originally intended to convey the fact that an object which is appraised at a high value is only really worth that if you can find someone willing to pay that price for it. It was not intended to mean that it is ethical to charge any amount of money for an object, if someone is willing to pay that much. In fact, the US has anti-extortion laws to prevent businesses from taking advantage of shortages of goods needed for survival by raising prices (laws which have not been enforced during the last few disasters of sorts that those laws were created to cover).
I find that the most ethical method of determining value of goods for sale is to base the price on the cost of production. If a device costs $50 in parts and labor to produce, then that device should not be priced at $1,000. If it is, then it is extortion and theft. Of course, if the production of that device requires expensive equipment, then the cost of the device should reflect that, but it is still not ethical to make the first 100 customers pay for the manufacturing equipment and then keep the excessive profits from future sales.
There are many industries that abuse capitalism in ways that rip off the customer. Companies that produce electronic media are a major contender for the least ethical business practices. Electronic media is especially easy to do this with, because it only has to be produced once and then unlimited numbers of copies can be made at almost no additional cost. A music artist may spend 320 hours (2 months at 40 hours a week) composing a new album. The artist might then spend 20 hours recording all the tracks. Several people (3 maybe) at the studio will also be working to record the album and they might then spend 20 hours editing the tracks and mastering the first copy of the album. The record label might spend 100 hours working on advertising and pay some radio stations or TV stations for advertising time. The label will then copy the master onto thousands or millions of CDs. After this, people or stores will order the CDs, but they will pay shipping and handling, so the label does not have to worry about that. If each person involved gets paid $50 an hour (which I doubt), then the total labor costs through creating the master comes out to $25,000. The cost of the actual CDs (let's say 500,000) probably comes out to less than $50,000 (10 cents a piece is probably a high estimate). If each CD sells for $15 and the record label gets $10 from each, that comes out to $5 million. Presuming $500,000 in advertising costs, the company spent $575,000 on the entire thing and just made nearly 10 times that back. That is 1,000% return. That is absurd, especially given that the stores only made a 50% profit. Worse though, if the CD sells well, then the record company can quickly make another 500,000 copies for less than $50,000 and make another $5 million, at a 10,000% rate of return. Right, some money goes to royalties, but the pathetic rate of royalties for nearly any form of media is negligible (ever wondered why many musical artists keep going on tour, even when they have repeatedly stated how much they hate it). Why do we let the companies keep charging us for a product when society has already paid back several times what it cost to produce? This is extortion. Continuing to charge for a product that has already been paid for is theft.
It is not just media companies that do this though. Whenever new technology comes out, prices start very high. They generally slowly drop over time, but not at the rate they should. I understand that the cost of research and development has to be paid. This does not bother me. Once it is paid off though, quit charging us for it. New computer technology can take years to perfect. A lot of money goes into research. When it is finally ready, the prices are necessarily high. Most technology research is paid off within the first year after release. Somehow, even though devices like laptops only cost $50 to $100 to manufacture, we are still being charged $1,000 or more five or ten years later. When I found out about the low cost of manufacturing laptop computers, the technology was 5 years old. Now, 3 or 4 years later, the prices are finally dropping to more reasonable rates (though, $200 from $50 is still 400% return). The funny thing though is that they are not even using the old, cheaper technology. The new laptops are using new technology, which leads me to believe that $50 a piece was a high estimate and that modern laptops cost more like $25 (or less) to make, which means the return on a $200 laptop is 800%, which is still extortion.
Most of the world may disagree with me, but I am here to say: Charging the highest prices people are willing to pay is not ethical. Cheating people because they don't know better or because they are desperate is wrong. The value of merchandise should be based on how much it cost to produce, not on some math that maximizes profits but puts it out of the budget of people who really need it. What happens to those people that need food, but the math excludes their budget? Ever wonder why so many people need welfare just so they can afford to eat? Charging more than the poor can afford for food just to get a few extra dollars is evil and wrong. People are going hungry in the US because businesses have convinced us that it is ethical to rip off anyone who can afford to pay. It is not ethical to base prices on what people can afford. This is what is destroying our economy.
Lord Rybec
23 October 2011
Class Warfare
Mitt Romney made a statement essentially accusing the Occupy Wall Street movement of inciting class warfare. I find this interesting, given the fact that one basis of our original government was that it was a classless system. How then, if our government is supposed to be a classless system, can Romney claim that any political movement within the US could be inciting class warfare?
This actually brings up a much deeper problem within our society and government. The very existence of social classes within our society is in opposition to the basic precepts of the US Constitution. If anything can incite class warfare in the US, then our system is deeply flawed. The problem is not that anyone or anything is inciting class warfare, but the fact that class warfare is even possible. Instead of attacking those "inciting class warfare," we need to be questioning the existence of social classes in our society in the first place. If we were living in a truly classless system, class warfare would not even be possible. Occupy Wall Street is justified, by the entire concept of the US government, in inciting class warfare against any social class that believes that they are above another (or that even sees themselves as a separate social class). The upper class should not exist. The lower class should also not exist. How then is it that distinct social classes have come to exist within our society?
Our founding fathers left Europe for two reasons: first, to gain religious freedom, and second, to escape the oppressive class system that allowed the upper aristocratic classes to lord over the the less fortunate. They created a government system designed to allow each person an equal chance in life. They swore off the social and financial class systems of the European nations and designed the new government system to not tolerate classes. However, as our society has evolved, our government has not. The old system worked fairly well for the technology and knowledge of that day. Now though, we have much more complex economical systems that are not sufficiently covered by the old system. In the old system there have been found many loopholes that have allowed social classes to reappear. We now have the ability and power, which was not had in the past, to fix this problem. Unfortunately, our current government does not have the ethics of our founding fathers. Our founding fathers actually cared about the people they governed. Our current government does not.
We need a government that will eliminate social classes. We need a government that will listen to the people and do the will of the people, not the will of the companies or the will of the 1% of the population that is rich. Many people in Europe immigrated to the US to escape oppressive social classes. We do not have the luxury of a place to run to, to escape oppression. We have been backed up against a wall by an oppressive government that is allowing itself to be controlled by an oppressive social class that should not even be allowed to exist. The peaceful protests of Occupy Wall Street should be taken by our government as the warning hiss of a cornered wild cat. Guess what will come next?
This actually brings up a much deeper problem within our society and government. The very existence of social classes within our society is in opposition to the basic precepts of the US Constitution. If anything can incite class warfare in the US, then our system is deeply flawed. The problem is not that anyone or anything is inciting class warfare, but the fact that class warfare is even possible. Instead of attacking those "inciting class warfare," we need to be questioning the existence of social classes in our society in the first place. If we were living in a truly classless system, class warfare would not even be possible. Occupy Wall Street is justified, by the entire concept of the US government, in inciting class warfare against any social class that believes that they are above another (or that even sees themselves as a separate social class). The upper class should not exist. The lower class should also not exist. How then is it that distinct social classes have come to exist within our society?
Our founding fathers left Europe for two reasons: first, to gain religious freedom, and second, to escape the oppressive class system that allowed the upper aristocratic classes to lord over the the less fortunate. They created a government system designed to allow each person an equal chance in life. They swore off the social and financial class systems of the European nations and designed the new government system to not tolerate classes. However, as our society has evolved, our government has not. The old system worked fairly well for the technology and knowledge of that day. Now though, we have much more complex economical systems that are not sufficiently covered by the old system. In the old system there have been found many loopholes that have allowed social classes to reappear. We now have the ability and power, which was not had in the past, to fix this problem. Unfortunately, our current government does not have the ethics of our founding fathers. Our founding fathers actually cared about the people they governed. Our current government does not.
We need a government that will eliminate social classes. We need a government that will listen to the people and do the will of the people, not the will of the companies or the will of the 1% of the population that is rich. Many people in Europe immigrated to the US to escape oppressive social classes. We do not have the luxury of a place to run to, to escape oppression. We have been backed up against a wall by an oppressive government that is allowing itself to be controlled by an oppressive social class that should not even be allowed to exist. The peaceful protests of Occupy Wall Street should be taken by our government as the warning hiss of a cornered wild cat. Guess what will come next?
Occupy Wall Street
It is time for me to discuss a number of political ideas that I have had that could solve many of the current problems with the economy and the distribution of wealth issues that plague our nation and much of the world. First though I would like to discuss the Occupy Wall Street movement and the obvious implications of not fixing these problems.
Occupy Wall Street is the child of oppression. Much like the communist revolutions in Russia, Vietnam, Korea, and China, this movement is a response to the continued oppression of the poor and middle classes by the rich. As with the communist movement, I believe that if these problems are not fixed in a timely manner, this will end in a bloody revolution and the utter destruction of the US government. Thomas Jefferson once said that he believed that every government needs a good revolution at least every 200 years. The US government has gone far over that, and really has not done too badly. If the US government wants to survive though, it must bend to the will of the people that it was designed to serve. The American people have a strong sense of entitlement (which I do not necessarily agree with, but which exists nonetheless). This sense of entitlement is evolving into the sense of freedom that our founding fathers had and people are beginning to realize that the people of the US are no longer a truly free people. As the Occupy Wall Street movement points out, 99% of the US population are enslaved to 1%.
We may not see this as slavery, because we have the freedom to quit our jobs whenever we want. No one is applying physical force to cause us to provide them with labor. Further, the labor that we provide is compensated. It is easy to miss the fact that we are indeed slaves. Maybe I can make it more obvious. The 1% of the population that are the slavers require that we work for them. They force us to do so by taking away opportunities for us to work for ourselves. Small businesses have an extremely high failure rate. Obviously, some of the problem is that not everyone has the skills to effectively run a small business. However, a larger part is that small businesses have to pay full taxes, while large businesses get many tax cuts. Also, the monopolistic practices of large businesses make it impossible for small businesses to be profitable in a vast majority of markets. Occasionally slaves do escape, but often only to join the 1% that are enslaving the rest of us. Furthermore, the black slaves of the South were also compensated for their work. They were given room and board. Likewise, most modern jobs provide only enough pay for room and board, and many do not even provide that. A majority of Americans are literally being paid like slaves were in the South and a good portion of those are getting paid less than that. Evidence of this is that so many people have to rely on the welfare system to survive. Like slaves, most Americans are being forced to work for wages that are far less than fair.
The people of the US have finally begun to protest against the slavers and against the corrupt government that is supporting the slavers. Occupy Wall Street is the organized embodiment of a literal slave uprising. It is growing at an ever increasing rate as the slaves are recognizing the truth it is preaching. Thankfully, unlike historical slave or peasant uprisings, the people of Occupy Wall Street have chosen to begin the uprising in a civilized manner, with peaceful protests. Now it is the government's turn to act. It can either decide to eliminate corruption from within its ranks and reform our entire economical system, or it can do what it has become accustomed to and take bribes in return for keeping the slavers on top. This time though, that could be a fatal mistake. If peaceful revolution fails, our government will eventually be destroyed.
Occupy Wall Street has been criticized for choosing not to make any formal demands. Attacks have been made claiming that the movement must be disorganized and without focus. I agree with the assessment that an organized protest does not need to make specific demands. Occupy Wall Street is demanding reform that will correct a number of problems, problems which they have stated loudly and clearly. They are not required to provide the solutions; that is the job of the government. Frankly, most of the people of the Occupy Wall Street movement are not qualified to suggest solutions and they obviously realize this. Given this I find great wisdom in their choice to not make demands. The goal of the movement is not to correct problems. The goal of the movement is to identify problems and then demand that those problems be corrected by those with the responsibility to protect the 99% of the population that they have been neglecting.
We need an economy that allows us to escape slavery without becoming the slavers. We do not want wealth at the expense of everyone else and we do not want others to be wealthy at our expense. We have a government that we have hired through elections to protect us. It is their responsibility to provide us that. Instead of criticizing Occupy Wall Street for not offering solutions, our government needs to step up and earn their pay. It is their responsibility to enforce fairness, not that of a group of regular citizens that have no training in policy making. It is our job to tell our government what we want. It is their moral obligation to figure out how to do it. All we want is an honest government and our fair share of what we have worked so hard to create. Occupy Wall Street is not making demands because it is only asking for honesty and fairness. If the people of a nation must demand honesty and fairness from their government, it is time for that government to be overthrown and replaced.
Occupy Wall Street is an uprising of the oppressed peasant and slave classes that have been oppressed since the middle of the last century (and some would even argue much earlier). This is the US equivalent of the communist revolutions that spread across the Eastern Hemisphere at the beginning of the last century. If our government ignores this movement, we could end up in the same situation as many communist countries did, when their governments were overthrown and replaced with governments that eventually became tyrannical dictatorships. I support the Occupy Wall Street movement and I hope that our government has sense to act before it is too late.
Lord Rybec
Occupy Wall Street is the child of oppression. Much like the communist revolutions in Russia, Vietnam, Korea, and China, this movement is a response to the continued oppression of the poor and middle classes by the rich. As with the communist movement, I believe that if these problems are not fixed in a timely manner, this will end in a bloody revolution and the utter destruction of the US government. Thomas Jefferson once said that he believed that every government needs a good revolution at least every 200 years. The US government has gone far over that, and really has not done too badly. If the US government wants to survive though, it must bend to the will of the people that it was designed to serve. The American people have a strong sense of entitlement (which I do not necessarily agree with, but which exists nonetheless). This sense of entitlement is evolving into the sense of freedom that our founding fathers had and people are beginning to realize that the people of the US are no longer a truly free people. As the Occupy Wall Street movement points out, 99% of the US population are enslaved to 1%.
We may not see this as slavery, because we have the freedom to quit our jobs whenever we want. No one is applying physical force to cause us to provide them with labor. Further, the labor that we provide is compensated. It is easy to miss the fact that we are indeed slaves. Maybe I can make it more obvious. The 1% of the population that are the slavers require that we work for them. They force us to do so by taking away opportunities for us to work for ourselves. Small businesses have an extremely high failure rate. Obviously, some of the problem is that not everyone has the skills to effectively run a small business. However, a larger part is that small businesses have to pay full taxes, while large businesses get many tax cuts. Also, the monopolistic practices of large businesses make it impossible for small businesses to be profitable in a vast majority of markets. Occasionally slaves do escape, but often only to join the 1% that are enslaving the rest of us. Furthermore, the black slaves of the South were also compensated for their work. They were given room and board. Likewise, most modern jobs provide only enough pay for room and board, and many do not even provide that. A majority of Americans are literally being paid like slaves were in the South and a good portion of those are getting paid less than that. Evidence of this is that so many people have to rely on the welfare system to survive. Like slaves, most Americans are being forced to work for wages that are far less than fair.
The people of the US have finally begun to protest against the slavers and against the corrupt government that is supporting the slavers. Occupy Wall Street is the organized embodiment of a literal slave uprising. It is growing at an ever increasing rate as the slaves are recognizing the truth it is preaching. Thankfully, unlike historical slave or peasant uprisings, the people of Occupy Wall Street have chosen to begin the uprising in a civilized manner, with peaceful protests. Now it is the government's turn to act. It can either decide to eliminate corruption from within its ranks and reform our entire economical system, or it can do what it has become accustomed to and take bribes in return for keeping the slavers on top. This time though, that could be a fatal mistake. If peaceful revolution fails, our government will eventually be destroyed.
Occupy Wall Street has been criticized for choosing not to make any formal demands. Attacks have been made claiming that the movement must be disorganized and without focus. I agree with the assessment that an organized protest does not need to make specific demands. Occupy Wall Street is demanding reform that will correct a number of problems, problems which they have stated loudly and clearly. They are not required to provide the solutions; that is the job of the government. Frankly, most of the people of the Occupy Wall Street movement are not qualified to suggest solutions and they obviously realize this. Given this I find great wisdom in their choice to not make demands. The goal of the movement is not to correct problems. The goal of the movement is to identify problems and then demand that those problems be corrected by those with the responsibility to protect the 99% of the population that they have been neglecting.
We need an economy that allows us to escape slavery without becoming the slavers. We do not want wealth at the expense of everyone else and we do not want others to be wealthy at our expense. We have a government that we have hired through elections to protect us. It is their responsibility to provide us that. Instead of criticizing Occupy Wall Street for not offering solutions, our government needs to step up and earn their pay. It is their responsibility to enforce fairness, not that of a group of regular citizens that have no training in policy making. It is our job to tell our government what we want. It is their moral obligation to figure out how to do it. All we want is an honest government and our fair share of what we have worked so hard to create. Occupy Wall Street is not making demands because it is only asking for honesty and fairness. If the people of a nation must demand honesty and fairness from their government, it is time for that government to be overthrown and replaced.
Occupy Wall Street is an uprising of the oppressed peasant and slave classes that have been oppressed since the middle of the last century (and some would even argue much earlier). This is the US equivalent of the communist revolutions that spread across the Eastern Hemisphere at the beginning of the last century. If our government ignores this movement, we could end up in the same situation as many communist countries did, when their governments were overthrown and replaced with governments that eventually became tyrannical dictatorships. I support the Occupy Wall Street movement and I hope that our government has sense to act before it is too late.
Lord Rybec
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)