It sounds good, but in a way this has been tested in recent 'baillouts' in the UK. It didn't work. What you end up with is the same old people deciding what is important for investment/lending/employment, which changes nothing in a system already stagnant. The same people otherwise just take money OUT of the economy via hoarding/offshoring, or only spend in limited high-cost circles, creating a secondary wealth-circulating pool that 'us' never gets near.
A french economist, can't remember his name, suggested the opposite is more effective, bottom up: eg, the UK bank baillout equated to £3000 per household. It all went to banks and virtually none trickled down as they got stricter in their lending policies, but a whole heap of bonuses got paid.
If you gave the same £3k to the household, how many would hoard it? Most of the lower income bracket will spend it immediately, stimulating the economy from the bottom up, and in a broad spread of purchases benefitting many businesses, creating the experience of value and income all the way up the economic chain.
Of course, that was an emergency strategy for an emergency situation, but if you consider it, the only economy that has ever worked is 'trickle up'. The reason we end up with problems is when hoarding happens as it takes wealth out of the economy and everyone has to wait until its regenerated just to 'tread water' in terms of the shared feeling of wealth.
Maybe if you'd said 'ideologically rich' I'd have felt less keyboard-trigger-happy :D
Well said!