I noted comments from RobertJ and long-time commentator PSR on this blog recently about morals and the acquisition of money (as PSR put it), and felt it appropriate to respond.
In summary, I think that when the acquisition of wealth ceases to be judged morally, society loses its ability to judge morality at all.
That thought has been developing for some time, because if there is a thread running through many of the issues that I have campaigned upon, it is that they are connected by the idea that we have stripped morality out of the process of acquiring money, and the consequences are now unfolding across our politics, our economy and our society.
We should, I suggest, no longer talk about “making money”, partly because that is confusing in the context of modern monetary theory, and more importantly because much of what is now called wealth creation involves no creation at all. It is, instead, too often an act of extraction, whether that be from labour, from land, from artificially inflated assets, and from speculative transactions that add nothing of value. Despite this, our society has come to treat this extraction as if it were a virtue. The more a person accumulates, the more we are told to admire them, regardless of how they acquired that money. Some obvious thoughts flow from that.
First, this means we have normalised the belief that the pursuit of wealth is at least morally neutral. The financier who distorts a housing market is called innovative. The corporation that avoids tax is considered efficient. The monopolist is just profit-maximising. None of this language is accidental. A deliberate effort has been made over decades to separate money from morality, as if economic choices existed outside the sphere of ethics.
Second, the moral scrutiny that has been removed from the wealthy has been displaced onto those with the least. People on low incomes are now subjected to scrutiny, conditions, tests and suspicions. Their behaviour is moralised and most commonly frowned upon. Meanwhile, the behaviour of those who extract unearned incomes escapes any equivalent judgement. This inversion is not just unjust; it is socially corrosive.
Third, once morality is removed from economics, it then disappears from politics. If we accept that wealth can be accumulated without ethical constraint, then we also accept the political power that accompanies that wealth. Democracy is distorted when the ability to buy influence is considered normal.
From these thoughts, several consequences follow.
To begin, inequality becomes entrenched. If accumulation is celebrated and extraction is unchallenged, the gaps in income and wealth widen relentlessly. That is not the result of market forces alone; it is the consequence of a moral framework that rewards taking more than either giving or creating.
Next, public institutions decline. When the wealthy are not expected to contribute fairly, whether through taxation or through socially productive investments, the state is deprived of essential financial flows required to manage the economy. Public services are then condemned for failure, even as the tax base is deliberately eroded.
Then, trust collapses. People can see that rules apply differently depending on a person's status. They see tax avoided at the top while benefit claimants are lectured about responsibility. They see that some can bend the system with impunity. Cynicism grows, and with it the sense that the social contract has been broken, because that is the case.
Finally, political extremism thrives. When economic life is morally hollow, people seek certainty elsewhere. That is the fertile ground on which authoritarian movements grow: resentment combined with the belief that the existing order lacks legitimacy. We are seeing this unfold all around us now.
So, what follows?
Firstly, we need to restore moral language to economics. Markets are not natural phenomena. They are, instead, shaped by rules which reflect the values that a society chooses. If we do not embed fairness, restraint and social obligation within those rules, we embed their opposites and implicitly endorse them.
Secondly, we need accountability for those who accumulate wealth. Taxes must be paid. Regulation must curb extraction. Speculation must not be rewarded as if it were productive work. Wealth gained by harming others must be recognised for what it is, which is a social cost, and not a social contribution.
And, thirdly, we need to reclaim morality as a public endeavour. Economic morality is not about policing the behaviour of the poor. It is about defining the obligations of those with power and wealth. A democratic society requires a shared understanding that some actions are unacceptable because they exploit, harm or degrade others.
The danger we face is clear. If money remains detached from morality, morality will retreat from public life altogether, and when that happens, democracy itself becomes fragile.
In that case, re-moralising economic life is not an optional extra; it is the necessary foundation for a society worth living in.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“Behind every great fortune there is a crime.” — Honore de Balzac
This pulls together and articulates decades of decay and failing in politics and power, then builds a framework to restore morality and accountability among at the top, shifting the spotlight from the luckless and disempowered to those who extract wealth and their political servants.
Neoliberalism (a term fairly new to me) has seemed a vast machine or monster, but it was created by people and can be dismantled by them; the market should serve us, not be worshipped.
Robert J, PSR and RJM, thank you.
Thanks
Neoclassical economics is explicitly amoral. It’s purpose, it’s end is in a the abstract concept of ‘the market’, human beings are only relevant in an idealised form that serves the market.
We need an explicitly moral economic ideology if we want moral ends.
Amorality breeds immorality
Thanks
Absolutely brilliant.
But let’s not put morality under the biaised self justifications of politics ( Inevitable when defending a budget for instance and Rachel Reeves will be indulging in it soon) or insisting on being the only worthy voice.
‘Tax wealth not money’ is a profoundly moral slogan BTW.
I’ve lost 2 posts to that nasty gremlin on my phone where a slight graze with my knuckle on some part of the screen obliterates it beyond recovery, so this time I will confine myself to just saying thank you for this and I’m pleased others have found it helpful.
Thanks, too
Well, thanks for the mention in dispatches.
For me, it has always been about this phrase ‘making money’ – it’s such an abuse of language, especially if you consider money to be a closed loop system like the Neo-liberals seem to think that it is (and then it becomes a race to grab as much of it as you can). There is no room for the ‘other’ in this mode of thinking – it is purely individualistically acquisitive without consequences. In short, we need to re-socialize money and your post I think achieves this.
Thanks
Language matters. We should talk of “earning” money and distinguish it from “making” money. It’s the class difference between the worker and the rentier, between a fair return for productive effort, and the unfair return of profit on idle wealth.
For too long we have been educated to admire those who make money, and to despise those who earn it.
Agreed
Excellent! Couldn’t agree more. And it neatly ties to the Thomas Paine question.
The example of Elon Musk getting approval for a $1trillion salary is immoral on almost any / every count. How can it be justified in any sense? If they can afford to pay him $1trillion, why wouldn’t that sum instead be spread amongst the people who actually do the work? Or, be given to society / charitable causes, etc. It is absolutely insane that we tolerate this.
In most senior management roles it is ‘normalised’ that you cut workforces, minimise wage increases / benefits, minimise corporate tax paid, etc. Simply, morality doesn’t enter the equation! It is replaced by managerialisms such as efficiency, future-proofing, positioning for growth, etc. Euphemisms for ‘actually, I don’t care about people and I am doing the right thing for the corporation’. Essentially hollow justifications that exclude morality, compassion for your fellow humans and essentially translate (crudely) into “I’m alright Jack, up yours!”
In reality, having fought for democracy, supposedly eliminated slavery / serfdom, controlled the right of the aristocracy / landowners to treat people as mere chattels, etc., we are, in essence, allowing it to re-emerge via the wealthy (so-called) elite / oligarchy. They are acting – as the aristocracy before them – with absolutely no morality and orly in, if they are honest with themselves, their own self-interests and any ‘trickle down’ (the phrase says it all) is accidental or been unavoidable. And, senior executives in the main – like courtiers in the past – enable this.
I forgot to mention the main managerial euphemism…creating shareholder value.
Some people collect stamps as a hobby. I used to collect old Nilon 35mm equipment which I no loger use because of the price of 35mm film has become expensive. What I have difficulty in understanding is why accummalate wealth just because you can. It seem pointless that people have wealth but just lets is sit doing nothing other than perhaphs gaining more wealth.
Keep writing and thinking Richard and all the other contributor too.
Tom Devine reflects upon The Church of Scotland, and its demise:
‘ I personally believe the demise of the Kirk has had a negative effect on us as a nation, mainly because I believe the values upheld by the Kirk and its ethos has been good for Scotland in promoting what you might call “a decent way of life”. This ethos was rooted in self-help; anti-materialism, an honest work ethic and recoiling from ostentatious displays of wealth of the type you see in celebrity culture. ‘
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25641313.historian-tom-devine-catholic-mourns-demise-church-scotland/
“Speculation must not be rewarded as if it were productive work.”
I agree. I speculate because – for the most part it has made me far more money (and built my pension) than the work I have done. The engineering work I do is paid poorly & is sporadic. In early 2024 I was @ a HoC select committee meeting giving evidence, I described myself as an engineer & I could sense the sneering. Fine. I use my well honed numbers skills to make money by speculation from markets – because I can. I make no apologies.
In Sept’ I commissioned the first LV Statcom that solves imbalance in generators connected to weak (mostly rural) networks. Network imbalance causes them to trip – regularly.
The deployment is a European first and it was 100% my idea to take this approach. I probably spent 2 man months over +/- 2 years. That made me £4k.
And that sums up the problem, Mike.
You may well be familiar with the Malcolm Henry’s book OUR MONEY – 2012)
The following extract from Chapter 1 – Nonsense
‘From now on you’ll notice that instead of ‘earn’, ‘make’, and ‘save’ I tend to use words like ‘get’, ‘capture’, and ‘hoard’ when describing the things that we do with money because these words more accurately describe our use of money and will help us to understand how our attitude to money has to change in order to make our economy work properly.’
Malcolm Henry has since updated his writings to take into account the use of Sovereign Money to fund Universal Income. He has also published a more radical alternative for dealing with our failed economic system
Our Money – Well worth a read
I am not familiar.
Thanks. I gather it is MMT consistent.
One of the most succinct summaries of the natural cause and effect of our current system I’ve read. Will a key problem not be to build a strong alliance to actually implement this change? As outlined, we have an asymmetric power structure with power, wealth and resources all yoked to continue to support and legitimise the status quo. We are literally bombarded with this message from several sources every day. What would be interesting to understand is what proven techniques there are to begin to bring about the change we need – without resorting to a cycle of populist or authoritarian outcomes that don’t address the core problem.
Thanks
Always remember the golden rule: “those with the gold make the rules”.
Your comments on money and morality are so so true. And on another point is not the quotation “Behind every great fortune is a great crime”?