From a marketing and communications perspective, terms and what they mean are important.  From the Occupy Wall Street protestors we are hearing about “corporate greed,” whatever that means.  Michael Novak sums up the issue well.  Below is a section from his book, Business As A Calling: Work And The Examined Life.  The following addresses the thinking of the “Occupy Wallstreet” crouds:

“At the beginning of the nineteenth century–the intellectuals of the world have marched against free markets under the banner of equality.  Thus, those who make money, especially if they make lots of it, were thought to be by definition part of the problem, rather than the beginning of the solution.  Intellectuals have rejoiced ever since in defining the business class as their number one class enemy, the epitome and cause of social evil.

This was a profound and serious intellectual error, and the world has been suffering its ill effects ever since.  Moreover, the only motive many intellectuals and clergy can conceive of for people in industry and commerce is greed.  How often in a day do you read about “greed” or hear about it on television?  Yet making a living, even making a very good living, even creating a lot of new wealth (also for oneself), is not necessarily a sign of greed.

It is not wrong to want to be rich.  It may be foolish–the rich are not notably happier than the nonrich–but it is not wrong.  Getting anything you wish any time you wish is often deadly to happiness–and also to achievement.  Most of those in business who become rich try to live as though they were not, at least in two senses: they keep working hard, and they seek out new challenges.

A common sentiment expressed by artists and intellectuals, among others, is that it is unfair that some people are rich, while others aren’t.  This is an odd view of the world–a fantasy–since there has never been a society that is “fair” by that standard, and it is hard to imagine how there could be.  Notwithstanding that, some intellectuals take the proposition “all men are created equal” as an argument against wealth.  This is a European conception.  It misses the American idea that by dint of imagination and sheer luck, individuals will begin with their native endowments and apply them unequally.

The American emphasis on equal opportunity assumes that not all will use these opportunities equally; and thus this principle further implies inequality in efforts and outcomes…”Created equal” means that nothing in one’s class status at birth prevents one from seizing opportunity.  It does not mean that everyone begins with the same family inheritance at birth or that what we have achieved during our lifetime must be limited to what we began with at birth.

If the huge numbers of the poor in the world are ever to lift themselves out of poverty, they need those with ideas and capital to invest in creating the industries, jobs, and wealth that will give the poor a base to build on.  Opportunities and jobs are more valuable to them than handouts from a government that treats them like serfs.”

Michael Novak, Business As A Calling: Work And The Examined Life, (New York, The Free Press, 1996), pp. 55-57.

Comments are welcome…