Yes, it is easy to follow things to that conclusion. I would go farther and state that whether the people do anything about the condition of morality in their country, it is still their lot in life to crumble brick by brick. Marx was brilliant in so many ways. He saw the trouble long before anyone else and he was right, though not my drink of water.
Where I depart from the author position of doom is that there is still a shining beacon of hope (Ronald Reagan). If the people listen to what Jimmy Carter was trying to say to the people. That they will have to suffer and in large quantities and learn to cut out the desire for more but, one place the writer points out is correct, the debt has to be paid. This is because that is how the rules have been in this new far-reaching utopian political machine called Roman Law.
If on the other hand, New Rome, would take the Greek approach to economic tragedy the world could be spared by first realizing that hoarding and greed are fear based and disruptive. (Greek economic laws were based n the principal that every ten to fifteen years all debts would be forgiven between countries and thus there was no need for an inflationary based economic engine.) A law could be passed that off shore or out of natal country banking would be intolerable, for a time.
When things begin to change and the rich see that it is not only their duty but, their responsibility to give 10 % in tithing back to the people they stepped on getting where they are. This could bring back the spine of the middle class. But, like most creatures of the earth, where meals are few and far between. What are the chances that the fat will stop eating long enough to even realize their crimes against their own body?
This is what religion talks about and its general-purpose. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is not just moral fodder but, a life-sustaining practice when viewed through the eyes of this topic which is, do we or do we not become grateful to the country that gave us (the rich) everything it has. When there is no room for the poor in the county anymore, and like Jesus pointed out there will always be the poor. The poor are the class that does not see money as the be-all and end-all of life. They are willing to work at menial labor for their supper and that of their families. When the rich become so cheap that they do not support the people ho clean the shit they make the system ceases to function.
My point is that every religion I have studied favor the ilk of the poor over the greedy. Some promise abundance after death. Though seven virgins and a goat are not my things, it does help to illustrate what is the very nature of the problem and that the old religious books are far more than just moral guides but, a living system of moral behavior that could spare man from its own nature. The nature of greed in the case of today’s sins. Some think they are better rather than different than their neighbors. I would interpret (as do the followers) that seven virgins and a goat are something of value if I was in that religion but, that is not what the motivation behind this particular religion is. It like most other religions are based on an economic outlook that cannot be discussed under its own term, because when it is, people are confronted with the idea of lack. Of a sense of wrong or duty and, after all, we get rich in order not see, or to place ourselves far out of the reaches of responsibility for the actions we took to get where we are when we are rich. (an interpretation)
Before jumping on the bandwagon, I am not talking about all rich , or that the rich are immoral on their own, nor do I consider $120,000 a year rich. I am talking about people who need to look for active shelters for tax breaks etc. If the campaign was to “Make America Great Again”, it would not begin with a tax break to try and shore up banking on natal soil for the rich. It would start by making the public aware that it has a spending habit and that the middle class has put itself under the bus, so to speak, by allowing distractions to become necessities. Yes, like this computer or cell phone. We got along fine without them for thousands of years. Nor is it wrong to have these things. What is wrong is to live beyond what you can afford but, at some point, the fickle finger of fate turns from the consumer to the fabricators. The indulgent poor to the greedy rich.
Now I worry as I am beginning to hear the pangs of classism in this idea I am trying to close. However, it must be said so I will continue to point out.
I for one and for the first time, after reading and listening to this article now see the point of religion as a guide to prevent such destruction of civilization. To give back or put into what you take out of, so that others may have. These are not far-fetched realities and it could be that the tradition of the time had to have a main character who had a supreme guide (God), so that they could see their way out of a paper bag, with guidance that was uncommon, therefore making fault of no one. Though there are many religions you realize that they all basically say the same thing. Share and share alike. If you take more than your river full then make sure the ones behind you can do the same. Yes, a double negative to prove the point. How befitting.
Just an idea. a Meandering if you will.