Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Valuing Wealth

Chapter 2 - pages 25, 26

The foundation of my thinking was that those individuals who make the greatest contribution to their field should reap the greatest returns in terms of power, leadership and of course financial reward.  The other premise is that there needed to be a shift in what was considered a rewarding industry.  For example, actors can make millions of dollars for entertaining American children, while teachers make tens of thousands for teaching them.  Business leaders make millions or even billions of dollars while scientists make a fraction of that.

As a corollary thought, those who made the least contribution should not expect to receive much beyond basic sustenance.  America was founded on hard work, initiative and honesty and these types of efforts would gain reward in the immediate future.  However, those who chose to do very little or thought that life owed them a living were soon to find out that America owed them nothing.

My goal was never, nor will it ever be, to dictate the income, power or leadership that any individual could attain, but rather to have society at large play a greater role in determining what roles are worthy of substantive financial rewards, and which are not.  Just to make a simple argument, does a baseball player deserve to make five million dollars while a fireman makes fifty thousand dollars?  Many Americans of course who believe in complete freedom say yes due to their belief in freedom and the free market.  Many people will find it hard to comprehend that I agree with these principles as well.  What I set out to do though, was to have the market and society change the definition of freedom to personal responsibility and have a free market where ethics, values and contribution were considered the most valuable characteristics of successful people.

No comments:

Post a Comment