Rolling Stones’, Matt Taibbi, described the 2008 financial greed at Goldman Sachs as, “…a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”
The 1987 movie, Wall Street, coined the classic line, “Greed is good!” And, the sequel (post 2008), has the main character observing to an eager audience, “… and apparently, now it’s legal.”
This year, a similar lecture, as if we’ve gotten mass amnesia, was given to University of Waterloo students by Kevin O’Leary – who Reader’s Digest magazine called, “…the media darling of cutthroat entrepreneurism.”
“There’s talk on the street; it sounds so familiar Great expectations, everybody’s watching you”
New Kid in Town by the Eagles
In his speech, he said that, “… the first job of business is to create wealth for the shareholders… the DNA of business is not to solve society’s problems.”
However, current figures show that businesses, give more than $1 billion to the United Way throughout North America (20% of its target). But, these contributions negatively affect the ‘wealth for the shareholders’, so why do they do it? Maybe, it’s because it’s never a wrong thing… to do the right thing.
Still, Mr. O’Leary loves to quote from ‘The Art of War’ by Sun Tzu: a key point states, “All warfare’s based on deception.” So, he tells his audience, “Business is war” – an apparent nod to “Greed is good” – as if selfish ambition hasn’t shown itself to cause every kind of personal and worldly disorder.
“Your job will be to go out and salt the earth that your competitor walks on, destroy their market share and pour boiling oil over them.”, he said.
“With every mistake, we must surely be learning”
While My Guitar Gently Weeps by George Harrison
Are we expected to buy into this adversarial business life philosophy? It’s a mind-set based on a ‘win-lose’ outcome; but, a ‘win-win’ attitude creates results based on mutual abundance. However, I wonder who’s the “winner” or “loser” if those students, who see him as a role model, can’t differentiate the hype from the substance.
“Too many people preaching practices Don’t let ’em tell you what you wanna be”
Too Many People by Paul McCartney
In January 2014, Yahoo News reported that Kevin O’Leary thinks that the global wealth gap is ‘fantastic news’. “…it inspires everybody … to look up to the one percent and say … I’m going to fight hard to get up to the top.”
“There’s room at the top they’re telling you still / But first you must learn how to smile as you kill /
If you want to be like the folks on the hill”
Working Class Hero by John Lennon
“All your life, you will be faced with a choice. You can choose love or hate…I choose love.”
Johnny Cash
So, if it’s true your treasure is also where your heart is, then that’s something you don’t want be a ‘lose-lose’.
Photo Credits
Vampyroteuthis infernalis – Vampire Squid – Wikimedia Public Domain
First published at fredparry.ca
Guest Author Bio
Fred Parry
Fred Parry lives in Southern Ontario. He is a lover of people and a collector of stories, music, wisdom, and grandchildren. His newspaper column, Music in Me, can be found in ‘The New Hamburg Independent’ Metroland Media. His book, ‘The Music In Me’ (2013) Friesen Press is Available from Amazon and Indigo / Chapters.
Blog / Website: www.fredparry.ca
Dear Monica,
“Sometimes I think it’s a sin,
When I feel like I’m winnin’ when I’m losin’ again” – – Sundown by Gordon Lightfoot
After a great deal of reflection, this message comes to you… in peace.
I’m sorry if my story – and particularly my response to you – upset you. It’s not my mission in life to find ways to upset others. Nevertheless, after re-reading it, now, I find my response was heavy handed, personal and judgemental.
I apologize.
My actual article, which tried to be balanced, concerned Mr. O’Leary and my hope for the students at WLU – and should have stayed that way.
Pope Francis spoke in Washington, recently, and although he wasn’t afraid to address the divisive issues of the day, he did so with compassion for others… in a non-combative manner. As my writing sometimes branches out in the world of political and social commentary, I believe I could learn much from his approach – bringing healing, not hurt.
I’m also reminded that you are an animal person… as am I. It would be nice to think we can, like our pets, share that same unconditional love for others… for a better world.
With sincere best wishes,
Fred P
No worries, Fred, the article certainly was not offensive at all. As to your response to me, absolutely no offense taken. But I really appreciate your message, it takes a very special person to write this. So, from one animal lovers to another…. a sincere thank you.
best regards
Monica
Helllo Fred,
thank you for your comments. I appreciate an interesting exchange even though we seem to be on opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum. I would also like to comment on some points where you misrepresent/misunderstand my views:
Your comment:
“First, I would like to expand the definition of ‘share•hold•er’: as “one that owns a share or shares of a company”, to that of ‘stake•hold•er’: “one who has a share or an interest, as in an enterprise.”
It seems to me that the later allows us to view both the “micro” and “macro” view of the situation. ”
Response: Agreed, but my reference was strictly limited to the share-hold-er, not the stake-hold-er, I assure you I am aware of the difference..
Your comment: “You seemed to believe in “laisser faire”, whereby less government oversight is best.”
Response: I do not believe in laisser faire government or the law of the jungle. (where did you read that I said that?) I believe that the government’s responsibility is to create an enabling environment including checks on unfettered exploitative practices and enforcement mechanisms and then get out of the way.
Your comment: “As my article pointed out, my view is that, left alone to their devices, business will always be self-serving – either to themselves (or by extension their shareholders) – seemingly oblivious to world around them. Consider the Wall Street financial greed that triggered the 2008 global recession – all in a weakened regulated environment. So much for ethics… so much for profit! ”
• “Let the free market decide whether such behaviour is acceptable.”
Response: Hence my point about the requirement for an enabling environment, checks and enforcement.
Your comment: “Other than one personal area of concern, you support profit 1st, ethics 2nd.”
Response: your categorical and judgmental statement reflects that you did not understand my point. I am NOT ranking profit vs ethics on a sliding scale. There is space for both and they do not need to share the same arena, even though they can. I am contributing vigorously to those charities (financially and with my time) that resonate with me and that are consistent with my ethical views, And yes, I am primarily a “single issue” advocate and that is my choice. I will not support companies who engage in cruelty to animals, regardless how much profit I would make by investing in them. So, yes I do vote with my profit margin in support of my ethical convictions. And I am stating this not in order to justify myself but to explain my preferences. On the other hand, I do like to increase my income and thus I invest in companies that will generate such income. I consider myself a SHAREHOLDER and not a stakeholder when it comes to my investment choices. And as a shareholder, my selection criteria when choosing a company to invest in (with the above-noted exception) is income generation.
Your comment: “You know, it’s like being a bit pregnant: you either are or you’re not. By extension business is either ethical or not. I know that the word “ethical” is subjective to everyone, but that’s why I say that the objective of creating a “win-win” world respects the rights of other stakeholders – from the increasingly exhausted environment to a grumbling senior’s pension: from heath care to jobs: in all areas of our lives – non-financial to financial – we are all stakeholders in our collective future.”
Response: I am not an absolutist on most issues, hence I do not agree with the analogy of “being a bit pregnant”.
Your comment: “You say “it depends.” I ask, why not extend our concern to our widest potential?”
Response: Because I believe in the freedom to choose on which areas of concern I want to focus my attention, my resources and my engagement; because I want my “concern” to translate into benefits in real time and in tangible form and because concern to our “widest potential” is too nebulous a concept for me to be actionable.
Hi Monica, and thanks for taking to time to read and respond to my article. I think it’s great when people can engage in thoughtful debate that the LAAH website provides.
After some consideration, I wanted to share my initial thoughts, as concisely as possible, to each of your main points; yet, not to get bogged down in either Keynesian or Friedman economics – the two that will probably never meet in the middle… best left up to the “adults” to consider.
Instead, I would like to strike common ground – in as many ways as possible – recognizing that there will always be someone who will feel their ‘ox has been gored.’
First, I would like to expand the definition of ‘share•hold•er’: as “one that owns a share or shares of a company”, to that of ‘stake•hold•er’: “one who has a share or an interest, as in an enterprise.”
It seems to me that the later allows us to view both the “micro” and “macro” view of the situation.
For example, a “stakeholder” will definitely include shareholders, but will also include – directly or indirectly – many others… including customers, suppliers, employees, the country, or world, in which we all live. It’s in this context, I’ll respond to your main points – as I see them.
***
• You seemed to believe in “laisser faire”, whereby less government oversight is best.
• As my article pointed out, my view is that, left alone to their devices, business will always be self-serving – either to themselves (or by extension their shareholders) – seemingly oblivious to world around them. Consider the Wall Street financial greed that triggered the 2008 global recession – all in a weakened regulated environment. So much for ethics… so much for profit!
***
• Let the free market decide whether such behaviour is acceptable.
• By the time the real story got out about the level of unethical behaviour, a lot of people lost a lot of money – trillions of dollars world-wide. I mean, the only thing to do was for governments to bail business out of the financial mess they created. Still, it didn’t stop executives, from those same corporations, from rewarding themselves with large bonuses. Try to explain that to the average “Wal-Mart” type stakeholder – of which their Wall Street shareholders were only a small part.
***
• Other than one personal area of concern, you support profit 1st, ethics 2nd.
• You know, it’s like being a bit pregnant: you either are or you’re not. By extension business is either ethical or not. I know that the word “ethical” is subjective to everyone, but that’s why I say that the objective of creating a “win-win” world respects the rights of other stakeholders – from the increasingly exhausted environment to a grumbling senior’s pension: from heath care to jobs: in all areas of our lives – non-financial to financial – we are all stakeholders in our collective future.
You say “it depends.” I ask, why not extend our concern to our widest potential?
Hello, Fred,
your question compelled me to respond because the answer is not as facile as the question would appear to suggest. “It depends” would be a trite response. To put my opinion into context I would like to refer to Milton Friedman. Without going into too great a level of detail, he stated that a company’s primary obligation (and I am paraphrasing here) is to create wealth for its shareholders. There is no mention of how that wealth is being accumulated, no reference to ethical considerations or corporate social responsibility, etc. As a shareholder, I would tend to agree with him. The only reason I am investing in a company is to generate income not support a social agenda. If that company’s business practices and corporate philosophy is not conducive to realizing this objective than I would obviously not invest. The next decision-making point, then at least for me, is one of ethics. Having determined that the company will generate income for me, do I agree with its course of dealing or will my personal beliefs preclude me to invest in this enterprise, despite its high rate of return? (In my personal case, I will not invest in companies that test on animals nor will I use their products). And this loops back to your question. If a company engages in “anything goes” behaviour than in a free market economy it should be the market that must decide whether such behaviour is acceptable. And the viability of such a company will thus depend on the personal or societal normative values of its investors and not on a regulatory framework.