Study shows gap growing between rich and poor

Do we need a Referendum For A New Democracy?

Are you concerned about the future of democracy? Do you feel democracy is under attack by extreme greed in countries around the world? Are you sick and tired of: living in fear, corporate greed, growing police state, government for the rich, working more but having less?

Can we use both elections and random selection (in the way we select government officials) to rid democracy of undue influence by extreme wealth and wealth-dominated mass media campaigns?

The world's first democracy (Athenian democracy, 600 B.C.) used both elections and random selection. Even Aristotle (the cofounder of Western thought) promoted the use random selection as the best way to protect democracy. The idea of randomly selecting (after screening) juries remains from Athenian democracy, but not randomly selecting (after screening) government officials. Why is it used only for individual justice and not also for social justice? Who wins from that? ...the extremely wealthy?

What is the best way to combine elections and random selection to protect democracy in today's world? Can we use elections as the way to screen candidates, and random selection as the way to do the final selection? Who wins from that? ...the people?

This is why we need to spread the wealth around.

Not (only) because it's more fair to take a couple of hundred dollars from someone who makes $500,000 a year between salary and stock options for doing easy work in an executive position they got due to having "connections" and enjoy both "business trips" and generous amounts of paid vacation time, and give it to someone who's working two grueling jobs for hourly pay adding up to $25,000 a year with no benefits at all and still can't afford their kids' healthcare or college education much less a family vacation farther away than the nearest beach.

(Those examples are not representative of everyone who makes those two amounts for annual income, of course -- there are people who make well over $250,000/year who did manage it by working hard for it, and people making closer to $12,500/year who could be making more but don't, sometimes for reasons such as "deadbeat dads" avoiding having garnishable income) but they do hit close to the mark for many in each group.)

Which group does more to stimulate the economy by buying products, though? The answer isn't whoever has more money to spend, it's whoever there are more of.

Ask a car dealer whether they'd rather have one customer buy their most expensive car or a hundred customers buy more affordable cars.

Ask a jeweler whether they'd rather have one customer buy a necklace covered in gems (or equivalent high-ticket "bling") or a hundred customers buy engagement and wedding rings.

Ask a caterer whether they'd rather serve one client throwing a six-figure gala or "corporate retreat" or a hundred graduation parties or family reunions.

Wait, I'm sorry, my examples all use small businesses.

Ask a grocery store chain whether they make more money from one person buying truffle oil, caviar and foie gras or from a hundred working-class customers who feed their kids cereal, sandwiches and pasta.

Ask an oil company whether they make more money from one rich douchebag filling up the Hummer they drive when they're feeling especially douchey or from a hundred people putting enough in the gas tanks of their fuel-efficient (because they can't afford to drive gas-guzzlers) cars to get them to work and back.

The people whose spending habits support our economy have to be able to afford to do things like buy winter coats (or fans and air conditioners, depending on the month).

A handful of wealthy people buying Liz Claiborne instead of Manolo Blahnik (sorry if this example is poorly-chosen, I am far from a fashion maven) or even deciding to keep wearing last season's designs rather than buying from the new collection, just isn't going to make as much difference as thousands of people putting off expenses like oil changes for their cars (which costs everyone more in the long run if that worker's car needs repairs as a result and they then can't get to work) because they can't afford them at the moment.

Spreading the wealth around isn't the same thing as taking enough from the wealthy (who may or may not have "earned" their wealth in a meaningful way) so that everyone will have the same income regardless of how hard they work. Right now in this country, spreading the wealth around is essential to the recovery of our economy.

The corporate profits the stock market trades on are dependent, after all, on their businesses making money... which they have a hard time doing if no one can afford to buy their products.