Either I’m really easily entertained, or Dilbert’s Scott Adams is a very smart guy.
I repeat the words of Mr. Adams every now and again, most recently a couple of months ago when the creator and author of the world’s most spot-on comic strip shared his opinion on how to fix the budget deficit.
In case you aren’t familiar with his back-story, Dilbert’s creator isn’t just a comic strip author. Before becoming one of the rich and famous he so often criticizes, Scott Adams was a well-educated cubicle dweller. The dude understands business and what works (and doesn’t work) about it.
Scott Adam’ latest proposal to fix the economy and budget deficit is to give the rich extra rights. Extra votes in [something constitutionally acceptable]. Essentially, make the rich preferred stockholders in this company we call the US of A.
It’s a wacky idea, right? Except it just might work.
Remember that the rich, like anyone, fight to have “more”. Never mind that they are already disproportionately so far ahead of everyone else as to make that idea difficult to explain; the rich want to stay rich, or as the old saying goes, the rich get richer.
But socialism vs. capitalism debates notwithstanding, it’s starting to look like the rich can’t get much richer without the economy and parts of our society toppling. And what Scott Adams has suggested is that if we give them extra rights, the rich might be made willing to part with some money in exchange. Essentially, we sell rights to the rich. Kind of like selling radio spectrum range to broadcasters or oil drilling rights to energy companies in exchange for exclusive . . . something.
But in this case the something is a higher tax rate, with the revenue fed back to all the people who need the money rather than merely want it.
Think that qualifies as business change?
This is reminding me of a proposal Neville Shute (remember On the Beach?) made in a futuristic novel called In the Wet (set in a flooded Queensland, in a timely note). He proposed a democratic system where some voters earned the right to more than one vote. But it didn’t reward the rich, it rewarded people who contributed to the fabric of society in a positive way: people who owned businesses (large or small), earned advanced degrees, stayed married for many years, served in the military or other public service position, and others. While Scott Adams’ idea at least makes the influence of the rich more transparent, I prefer Neville Shute’s idea of rewarding people for being good citizens.
Wow.
I don’t know the book, but as you’ve described things I agree with you. Pure unadulterated profit-driven approaches make work in the short term, but society is undoubtedly better served by something more substantive.
Then again, let’s remember that Dilbert is a four-panel comic strip. As smart at Scott Adams is (and I’ll repeat, Scott Adams is very smart), he and Dilbert both live in simple worlds!
I’m a big fan of Scott Adams, especially when he’s ragging on marketing departments that are out of touch with reality! (not that they all are, but I’ve worked with at least one that was)
‘In the Wet’ is a peculiar novel, if anyone out there is interested in reading it. In an alternative future where England never recovers economically from WW II and half the population has emigrated to Candada and Australia, the main character is a mixed-race Australian military pilot who ends up flying the equivalent of Air Force One for the Queen. Some adventure, some science fiction, some political commentary — typical Neville Shute and especially interesting since he was predicting what 1980 would look like from the vantage point of 1955. Not one of his most famous but worth a read for fun.