We live in the twenty-first century, a time when the world is led by rule-of-law states with politically free societies in which opposing democracy is viewed as indecent; however, our financial system is still based on relict ideological attitudes.
Thus, one can hear that professional rent-seekers pay high taxes and have to support low-income do-nothings. Let us be honest and think of this: is there any difference between those who receive government benefits and those who receive rent? Both the former and the latter receive their income from the society without giving anything in return. The only difference between these people is their social status that has nothing to do directly with the economic process.
These conclusions, despite their astonishing obviousness, are extremely hard to arrive at, exactly due to high ideologization of the society; however, they need to be drawn.
It is absurd to talk about somebody as kind as to pay taxes or fund other people’s needs without discussing where his or her income comes from. A drug czar or a corrupt official may spend his or her money on charity, but you have to agree that it will not smell right, although the well-doer will probably do his or her best to believe in his or her own sanctity and convince others. People are generally inclined to compensate for the depravity of their wealth, which they are aware of in their hearts, by claiming lofty ideas. This is a highly fertile ground feeding many ideologies.
Thus, the fractional-reserve banking system exists because it is able, by using noneconomic, noncompetitive methods, to create and maintain enormous fortunes, hence enjoying powerful ideological support from those social groups that are interested in maintaining the status quo. This banking system grants individual people the right to issue money, that is, make it out of thin air instead of earning it. Bearing in mind that access to bank resources is limited and obscure, such a system offers a chance to directly convert political influence into economic benefits. This get-rich scheme has nothing to do with the classic image of a successful entrepreneur, but is actively passed off as such.
It should also be noted that beneficiaries of the mis-created financial system supporting latent artificial distribution of benefits can often be seen in public advocating of the market economy and free competition. Here are some of their widespread ideological clichés:
One can be a foe of increasing money stock, opposing growth in government debts due to funding public expenditures, and at the same time latently support the bank system that creates money to finance private interests at the expense of the entire society.
One can be a foe of government regulation of the economy and at the same time lobby for huge government subsidies and contracts for private corporations.
One can be a supporter of economic competition and at the same time artificially restrict new players’ access to the market. One can talk a lot about a free society in which the most talented and hard-working people succeed and at the same time lobby for restriction of social mobility in order to maintain one’s own noncompetitive advantages. Artificial constraint of mass access to education and health care and artificial maintenance of high real property prices are the result of the way the financial system currently works.
All in all, one can make honest and consistent analysis, or one can serve the interests of certain groups. It is very important to delimit these things in the very beginning! Any ideas matter only in the context in which they were born and are being proclaimed. Economists’ biases put their ideas in question, regardless of how nice and scientific they look.
Deideologizing the financial system, its liberation from being tailored to individual people’s interests is one of the prerequisites of formation of a new financial architecture. The financial system must be designed to benefit certain behaviors and not certain groups of people. Rich people must be those who win recognition from the public in free, competitive struggle, those who win most monetary votes in the free economic election.