http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19310907
Ok.
So not only is
this a nice guy, decent human being thing to actually do, but it's also
what saves Leno from having a reasonably bad economic/social time.
Those jobs fuel the economy. No economy, no people buying TV
subscriptions, no ratings for Leno. They'll find cheaper alternatives,
such as, piracy to get the shows. But that doesn't translate into
advertising dollars for Jay.
How much would Mr. Leno's life be
effected by this pay cut? Nil. What's the honest difference between
$25 million and $20 million for an individual.
Granted, it
does mean less taxes overall for Mr. Leno, which means less money
available for re-investment. But such is what happens when you a) rely
on stagnant wealth, rather than relay it back into the economy and b)
maintain the current infrastructure of the economy without letting the
inefficient and ineffective (not aimed at you, Jay) fall under the waves
and be reborn with something else.
It's a much more dynamic take on the economy.
And it's one that, I hypothesize, is much more in line with a
functional/functioning economy than opposed to, say, neoliberalism which
is aimed at functionally creating more wealth for the individuals who
already have, rather than factoring in everything else that makes an
economy safe, stable, and functional.
The ethical is also the practicable.
And we can test for it all in the world around us, rather than rely on
just my own words that say "this is correct". We can even tweak it to
produce maximum effect and adjust it according to times and conditions
that may be different than our own.
Think about it.
That's the beauty of science.
Think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment