Dr. John Psarouthakis, Executive Editor, www.BusinessThinker.com
Our world continues to have an expanding population, an economy that increasingly is integrated on a global scale, a world environment faced by a variety of threats and disparate cultural values. In order to live and work successfully in such a world, individuals, organizations, sectors, and nations must work together.
We have entered an era in which knowledge of dominant technologies and the people skilled in its use are the key elements of sustainable growth in the complex environment we live in:
- It is an era of intense international competition.
- Corporations are continually changing, merging, and dividing.
- Employment is in flux.
- Major immigration waves are in motion
- Time scales are reduced.
In such times, we will succeed by our wits rather than by our power and natural resources.
Key dominant technologies in the 21st century era–things like:
Andrew G Haldane, Chief Economist, Bank of England
In a speech to the Trade Union Congress in London, (November 15, 2015), Andy Haldane discusses how developments in technology are likely to affect labour’s share of national income in years to come – and the implications this may have for policymakers.
Andy notes that arguments about “technological unemployment” – the idea that technological advance puts people out of work and bears down on wages – have been raging for centuries. According to Andy, most evidence shows that over the broad sweep of history technological progress has not damaged jobs but rather boosted wages: “Technology has enriched labour, not immiserated it.”
Dr. John Psarouthakis, Executive Editor.www.BusinessThinker.com.
Founder and Managing Director, www.jpmcenter.com
We all know that if we confiscate the entire 2014 earnings of the highest earners and sent it to Washington, you would solve almost nothing in Washington. Most of us, I hope, understand furthermore that pulling the One Percent’s wealth away from the capitalist funnel that feeds our economy would be worse than solving nothing; it would be a serious problem. This plan would, on the other hand, goad the very top layer of American wealth to do everything in its power to grow the economic pie.
I first thought of the plan applying to any person or entity with taxable income of $1 million a year or more. That was partly because a million dollars is certainly a nice income—but also because it’s an easy figure with which to work in sorting out numerical concepts. A $1-million cutoff would apply to an army of CEOs and business owners, but also to several battalions of quarterbacks, pitchers, power forwards, rock guitar players, actors, and media performers or executives. Applying the plan to the entire One Percent would cover any household making roughly $506,000 and up. Maybe the plan could be modified and applied effectively to affluent but somewhat lower pay grades. I don’t know. Economists and tax experts and actuaries and mathematicians who are whizzes with algorithms—lots of people need to have a go at fine-tuning and improving what I will call here “Economic Growth Corporations.”
These Economic Growth Corporations (EGCs) would not be think tanks, or advisory panels, or bureaucracies whose public benefit can be measured only via the most imaginative statistics. EGCs would be chartered to grow the economy in fact, not in theory and not as mere demonstration projects. EGCs would jumpstart our economic engine in ways numerous schemes, from “enterprise zones” to your town’s tax-abated industrial park, have never done.