In an economy founded on the principles of a free-market, I have one great gripe. For most people, this would be monopolisation, growing inequality or unsustainability. I acknowledge all three and agree that capitalism has to be heavily tempered to cap these almost inevitable effects. But the consequence that gets under my skin the most, because it can undermine economic theory across the whole political spectrum, is what I like to call ‘money for nothing’.

Being a philosophy graduate and bookworm, I’ve read The Communist Manifesto and The Social Contract. But then I’ve also read Leviathan, Reflections on the Revolution in France, The Wealth of Nations, Utopia and The Republic. I’ve also tried to take in everything with an open mind, both ideologically and historically.

I think economics and spiritual satisfaction are closely related. This is why politics causes such a stir in people. Unfortunately, it also causes a rather emotional and polarised response. I spent the early years of my professional career with the word ‘entfremdung’ written on a piece of paper beside my desk. This is from Marx’s theory of alienation; entfremdung, translating as ‘estrangment’. It was a reminder that for my work to be satisfying I needed to be the director of my own actions. A hard thing to do when being employed by others! But the reminder was there to encourage me to take more responsibility, not to become a passive cog in a machine but to grow and become the engineer of the machine I work within. This is actually more realistic than most people assume. Most employers want their workers to do this, but you have to prove your aptitude with results before they are willing to relinquish control (and pay). Most employees don’t want to stick their necks out before being rewarded.

I appreciate this isn’t exactly what Marx was expounding but I found proactivity and self-improvement certainly made me feel more fulfilled professionally. My primary goal is to increase productivity and quality. Marx would want me to be more concerned with being squeezed for ‘surplus value’. I compromise by expecting what I consider a fair share of that surplus value.

This brings me nicely to my gripe: the source of surplus value.

Surplus value is profit. I believe that, in order to have a healthy economy, profit should equate to the value of our labour. Our labour is what gives product its real added value. So an unhealthy economy is one where the GDP is ballooned by labourless profits, diluting the value of labour; in other words, where money has been made for doing nothing. I don’t purport to be an economist on any level. I know that to rid the economy of this type of wealth would be a mightily complex undertaking and that the whole system would probably collapse like a colossal game of Jenga. But it’s what we should at least be working towards. Think of the established practices and cons we would be ridding ourselves of. Think of any needless expenditure where someone else profits by doing nothing or next to nothing, or where they have created the false need in the first place. To name a few: private rentals, admin charges, wheeler dealers, currency trading, hedging, gambling.

Also, prices should be linked to their inherent value so nobody can game the market. In many instances, demand is fuelled by a social necessity. Taking advantage of necessity to further financial gain undermines the market and increases inequality. This market control happens with some essential things already, like water supply, but the premise should be rolled out across many more areas of life.

The key is that all wealth should be the product of human endeavour. This should be the unwavering definition of productivity. That way, we all stand to gain from maximised productivity, whether directly or consequentially.

The only major exception is any intervention required to address inequality or unsustainability; in other words, where it is in society’s interest, and not the individual’s, to game the market. This applies to welfare, subsidisation of green policies and ensuring a competitive market.

The trouble with all of this, again, is the polarisation of people’s views towards political economy. Any kind of market interference is branded as ‘left’. Yes, it certainly takes it towards the left but I don’t think it takes it way beyond the centre. Why? Because it still employs the basic tenets of capitalism, and it’s this foundation that means that many other people will brand the same economic approach as ‘right’. So, all in all, it’s difficult to imagine this kind of tempered capitalism gaining any traction.

Personally, I would go beyond the level of intervention I’m suggesting here but I’ll leave my view on that for another day. The point I’m trying to raise in this piece is that labourless profiteering undermines any economic theory, so this level of market intervention should be seen as intrinsic in maintaining its own principles.

Politics is always going to be a struggle; it’s the tussle of freedom versus unity and all its innate parallels. It will never be solved. There will always be people that, in their own interests, will want to take it towards a particular end of the spectrum. As with any successful relationship, a healthy compromise needs to be found that enables the maximum respect and a fulfilment, on some level, for all. We need balance, and no one achieves balance by participating in a shoving match.

I think that there’s hope though, namely the rise of green politics and the environmental necessity of a more sustainable and regulated economy. Compromise will become an existential requirement. Tomorrow’s world is one where we will be forced to meet in the middle and previous gulfs will be a hazy memory of a decadent and foolish past.

This month's favourites:
   Bruce Springsteen, Western Stars
   Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Part One
   Once (2007)