I would agree, in general, about the theory. A nation needs a wealth ideology based on ‘all’ the nation, not just the lucky few at the top. A social conscience or ‘contract’ that enables the nation to look after those who unfortunately have reasons why they cannot be part of the wealth creation, either temporarily or permanently.
There are, of course, those who will corrupt or ‘use and abuse’. But there will be in every society.
Issues with firms not paying corporate tax to extract our minerals and other assets is a case in point of the ‘lucky few’, looking after each other at the top of the political and financial pile.
The perpetual career bludger and career criminal is the other end of the scale.
If the system is inherently fair, most of those two examples disappear and it spreads as the system develops.
Greed and ego is the problem. 95% of people just want to live a life that’s nice and fair. 5% (mostly alpha male shithead types - like Trump and Putin (+Chinese Politburo heads)) want power. If people who are wannabe 5% they follow. It’s how you get hard core nazis and communists. They are extremes of the same thing in reality. The competition of Stalin and Hitler on ‘who killed most?’ is an example of these extremes.
Trouble is the 5% are such a pain in the arse with the extreme influence they garner at the expense of power over the potential of the educated part of the 95%, who tend to be pacifist non-aggressor males or women of talent.
