They report the word economy began being used for the “wealth and resources of a country” in the 1650’s, but they don’t say who to honor or blame for the usage.  (I blame the British, but I also wouldn’t put it past the French either.)  Going from a concept as personal as managing your own home “economy” became understood as how the country is doing.  These ideas would be closely relatable if someone were extremely patriotic about their country or tightly knit within their community.  Was there a time in America when our economy was seen as a sense of personal concern for the wealth and resources of everyone in our country?  Was their a time when economy held a personal attachment like our own house? 

I imagine it is possible because there was a time in American history when the Bellamy salute was cool to do in public.

Without such personal concern attached to how we think about the Economy in this country, what we have is an economic system which generates poverty.  As those with the necessary desire accumulate more and more wealth the price of goods go up in tandem.  Since those with wealth are able and willing to pay more for goods, providers can charge more money over time. 

When the richest guy in the world has $1,000, a pack of gum costs a penny.  When the richest guy in the world has $1,000,000,000, a pack of gum costs almost two dollars.  There’s nothing wrong with the system as long as wages increase for everyone at the same time.  It is also healthy to expect in such a system that when wages stagnate at the top then wages also stagnate at the bottom.

The problem begins when wages stagnate at the bottom but continue to expand at the top?  The price of goods don’t stop going up when most people cannot afford to pay what many are willing to purchase.  My understanding of inflation is that the value of money goes down when more of it is printed and distributed.  It doesn’t matter whether two billion dollars is printed and split between two million people or given to two people the overall value of the money goes down for everyone.

If this is the case, then it would seem logical to draw the conclusion that income disparity within a country at some point becomes a matter of national interest.  Amassing enormous wealth over the average person has a negative effect on fellow citizens by putting inflationary pressure on everyone’s money.  That is to say, everyone’s dollar is worth less when one person has five billion dollars of value and thirteen others have 100 million.

This seems to be an inherent flaw in our system.  If amassing wealth by a few causes poverty for many, then the system can’t guarantee to sustain itself without the use of force.  No one wants to live in a state defined as poverty, but poverty is defined by the cost of goods and access to value.  If the desire to amass wealth is greater than the desire to maintain a positive existence for all around then nothing will stop acquistion and inflation.  When everyone is responsible for inflation then inflation is everyone’s problem, but inflation inflicted becomes a burden on the economic entire system.

When a dollar won’t buy you a Coke either the number of people with several dollars increase or people stop buying Coke.  When five hundred dollars won’t buy you AC in the summer or heat in the winter people die.  The economy encompasses the critical and mundane.  The economy provides a form of justice while imposing severe infractions.  The economy bows to no one person, because the economy is not a solitary activity.  It would seem that a compassionate person must begin with the premise that the economy is something which must be monitored, fine-tuned, and tweaked. 

Otherwise, someone benefits at the direct expense of many others.