Disappointing and appears contradictory. The author advocates that major economic decisions should be based upon intuition and emotion, rather than reason and learning. For example,
“… the distortion in their lenses caused by excessive learning…”;
“… the need for intuitive understanding…”;
“… requires a feel for things…”
The author frequently uses vague and undefined terms and phrases that appeal to emotions, rather than reason, such as: Unfair contracts, groups are outwitted, gullibility, selfishness, duped, exploitation, property grabbing, loopholes, plunder, equitable, and fleece.
It appears that the author believes that what the world needs is a benevolent dictator who will use their “intuitive understanding”, their emotion, their “feel for things”, and not be blinded by their learning, to decide how the world should be run, and which assets should be taken from which people and given to those that the benevolent dictator believes are more worthy.
But then, it is difficult to reconcile all of what the author has said, such as that set forth above, advocating significant changes in the world, with the author statement “I believe in determinism, which implies that the future that stretches in front of us is foretold, and as unalterable…”.
How is it logically consistent for someone to at the same time (X) believe that the future is “foretold, and as unalterable”, and (Y) advocate significant and drastic societal changes?
Perhaps a more knowledgeable person than me can explain and reconcile these views and contentions. If they can be explained and reconciled, then where can I find such explanation and reconciliation?