One of my opinions about economy is that before we even begin to establish its structure we must agree upon the ontological nature of reality. As we have based our current economic system on the implicit premisse of free will without considering that this might not be a true representation of reality.
Our society has made a giant leap forward by moving from the aristocracy of birth to the meritocracy we live in today, which sadly so many people by nature of their short-sightedness perceive as the final improvement. Although this is a major amelioration it is still inherently immoral.
We got a verb in my native language that suits well here: Each bird sings as its beak is mouthed.
We are determined in every way, we are what we are because of our genes ( internal factors) and our surroundings ( external factors). It is the ‘I’ that makes the decision, but do we decide what we decide?
So if we as a society agree upon the determined nature of ourselves, our entire economic system should be revised from the bottom up as it is based on the deeply immoral idea that a person should be rewarded based on his ability to make money , which is not the merit of this person, but simply made possible by chance or fate. Hence our economy is simply the application of the right of the strongest. Which is the fundamental rule that applies to life insofar that it is an unconscious unguided process. The difference is that man IS conscious and CAN guide the course of things (to an extent), this gives us a great responsibility to act and an ethical imperative to control and limit it. The problem is that the people who have the power will very rarely, if at all, have the moral courage and strength to undermine their own power for the good of the collective.
On a side-note, our economic structure is formed in such a way that we don’t even have to make a tangible contribution to society to earn legal money (financial investors and such).
Also, communism or even socialism has such a dogmatic negative connotation in the states, instilled by the government in the minds of her people. It is true that communism as it has been executed in the past and present is almost as far from an ideal society as it can be, but the cause of this lies in a fault in its executors, and not in the ideology itself. Fascism should not per definition accompany communism.
Our economic system, and society as a whole, is inherently immoral on such a myriad of ways that it is hard to conceive that there aren’t countless of people like Sam who criticise it.
It are the people on wall street who are the real thieves, as they have by way of complex financial constructions tumbled the world in an downward spiral. By allowing more and more high-risk loans to be given and insuring themselves against it so that they make even more money when the creditor can’t pay it back. Rating-bureaus who give AAA ratings to even the highest risk loans, raising questions about their integrity. The people whom devised those mechanisms and countless others in the financial system make millions and millions while at the same time dozens of millions of people are left without a job just because of the domino effect that their actions created. Yet they aren’t reprimanded in any way, on the contrary, it are the same people who caused the financial depression who sit in the economic advisory board of Obama. Ensuring from the top that the banking system is deregulated, and aggressively putting down anyone who would suggest that it should be regulated.
Man must be controlled by law ( the state). And it is, among other things, thanks to the refusal of the government of the U.S. to regulate the banking system that we’re all in this mess. Allowing banks to speculate wildly with the money of Average Joe, putting their clients meager life savings on the line to make hundreds of millions themselves.
So I wonder who those readers whom criticise Sam’s economic ideologies would consider the biggest thief if they were fully informed? The financial investor on Wall Street that makes hundreds of millions a year on the back of Average Joe without contributing a thing to society, or the man that tries to limit their almost diabolical ruthless drive to make money and distribute their excess to the most needy.
I think\hope every rational and foremost ethical person would choose the first!