Addition not Division

As I wrap up in Econ for the term, my action project comes together. We talked a lot about the history of our current economy and how it works. First we discussed the role and effect of the government and politics in the economy, discussing terms like "laissez faire" and "dirigisme." Next it was talking about past individuals whose theories and ideas shaped the economy today; people like Hammurabi and the first recorded economy to Karl Marx and his idea of Marxism that lead to the creation of Communism. All of this was put around a book that we read, written by Kate Raworth: Doughnut Economics. She talked about the failures of past economists, their findings, history, and how we should use it to learn and shape our economy for a better future. There are seven chapters in the book and we were asked to bring up what we think should be included in the book as the eighth chapter. My submission? Social-Economic Divides: 

"Get it together" CDH, 2021

Let me break this down piece by piece as the writer of this chapter summary. I want to say that I am referencing America in most of this as that is where I am from. But first things first, “We are divided”. I am not the first to say this in recent history and it probably won't be an uncommon statement in the future. As a nation we are not unified, on the same page, equal or whatever other words you want to use. Leading from that, I try to iron out some of the bigger details/ over lying issues that plague us. Things like racism, which has been a thing in America since Columbus came to North America in 1492 (It's been 529 years of oppression).Things like the imaginary lines that tell you that you can't be somewhere without another person's approval or observation (Less of a plague, more like the social construct of “This is my land”). Things like the way we think, in that of the two major political sides each think about either the individual or the country and neither can see the appeal of another side or understand why one side likes what they think and the other doesn't so it becomes a big festival of insults at each other until enough people shout loud enough for their side. I detest it. There is no care or compassion in it. Republicans will either be blunt or they can't stop lying while Democrats will prey on emotions by being manipulative or will go with what they think people want to hear. Red and Blue. The louder representatives of each don't want to look out for the other and don't want to see an even bigger picture that even if they are on different sides, they are still connected by the ideal that they want the best for themselves as well as the things and people they care about (Unless some just want the world to burn).

"Division by sides" CDH, 2021

This idea of division in our society leads to a quote from Kate Raworth in a TEDx event speech that takes us to my main idea. “So if you take these four critiques to your typical economics professor, what will they say? Hmm, environmental explinality is well spotted, but you can study those in an optional paper in the second year if you like. Unpaid care economy? That sounds a bit feminist. And as for wealth and power, I think you're looking for the politics department.” The thing to take away is that even the economy is divided and it's looked at as being natural when, in fact, it mentally makes us separate different parts of what we think of being part of the economy. Another divide. It ends up as a pattern because we can't accept that all of it is connected. Even looking into the “wealth and power” bit, we can see that there are individuals that have an effect on the economy because of their status and money. A big example would be Elon Musk. Elon has made many moves in the crypto world and can change the state of it with internet memes. An article from CNBC explains how he tweeted a meme about “falling out of love” with bitcoin and it caused the coin value to fall as it went down by 4.3%. Not only did it affect bitcoin but other cryptos felt it as well with ethereum going down by 3.6% and dogecoin falling by 1.7%.

To wrap on the idea I want to push, what better way to explain a “purple” united nation than to combine several ideas of Marxism (modern day communism) with Capitalism: Two sides that have fought quite a bit. In all of this, I tried to have the UNs Sustainable Development Goals in mind as I wanted to innovate our society first, without being labeled “radical”, and second without being instantly discredited. The goals were introduced by the UN to combat some of the most pressing issues in the world and in society today. The goals in mind happen to be number 9, industry, innovation, and infrastructure, and a bit of 16, Peace, justice, and strong institutions. Innovate society, create a more peaceful/ unified nation for all as I feel even though we are seen as “in peace times”, there is still much infighting and unofficial war.

Universal income or basic income is an amount of money given to each person by the government usually under the reasoning of keeping the economy and individuals afloat. It is to help primarily the people that work minimum wages and half to live and work from check to check. Another reason relates back to that idea of an “unpaid care economy”, these workers that don't work a paying job would now have an income. Think of those stimulus checks people got in quarantine. You would get something similar every month or so. I thought it was a prime example of the combination I explained. A way to support everyone equally but there is still room to grow with that money. It is currently being argued for by some politicians. For example Keith Ellison, 30th Attorney General of Minnesota Incumbent, supports it publicly. Stating that “Basic income has some merit” and in a tweet states that he “is for it.” As the attorney general and the job's roles being based around advocating for their constitutes, protecting their rights, and generally being the person to try and understand the needs of the public I think (hope) we can trust in his opinion of it being a good thing for us.   

In conclusion I think that we are not in peace times and we are not a united nation. I think it is possible but will be difficult. I want there to be a more true kind of equality and I want us to understand each other.

Even though I could go into small, small, details, I want to leave you with this and ask what you think is dividing us? And how it may be needed or how it may be hurting us. With that, I thank my teacher and peers for helping me develop my idea through conversation and letting me understand what I really mean. Have a good day, night, or whenever you are reading this.

-CDH

Online sources while researching: 

Harding, Robin. “China Needs to Learn Lessons from Japan's 1990s Collapse.” Financial Times, Financial Times, 28 Oct. 2021, https://www.ft.com/content/af51a737-954c-475b-8c91-76cafe88ef12.

Heretik, Jack. “Ellison: Idea of Universal Basic Income 'Has a Lot of Merit'.” Washington Free Beacon, 29 Mar. 2018, https://freebeacon.com/issues/ellison-idea-universal-basic-income-has-merit/.

“Keith Ellison.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 2 Nov. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ellison#Basic_income.

Poushter, Jacob. “10 Key Takeaways about Public Opinion in Europe 30 Years after the Fall of Communism.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 27 July 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/15/key-takeaways-public-opinion-europe-30-years-after-fall-of-communism/.