Apparently, Some Still Think Greed Is Good ...

Today, the Wall Street sequel hits theaters. Apparently, the "Greed is good" philosophy articulated by Gordon Gecko 25 years ago still has its ardent admirers. For a perfect case in point, see this opinion piece by Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate on CNN.com.

On the one hand, I do have to give Brook and Ghate some credit. Many folks whom I see arguing for the advancement of the free market seem to act as if it is this wonderful, idyllic haven that allows for total freedom, which would include the freedom for individuals to develop their own moral codes. These proponents either fail to grasp or fail to mention that the free market system does set up a moral code--one of competition, adversarial relations, and the acquisition of profit, property, and capital. In a sense, these folks focus on the "free" part of "free market" without acknowledging the "market" part. At least Brook and Ghate publicly admit that the system contains and coerces people to follow a moral code.

On the other hand, Brook and Ghate are not as forthright as they could or really should be in discussing that moral code. Namely, they celebrate the industrialists of roughly 100 years ago for the progress that they produced, and they argue that big-money capitalists of the present day should be celebrated for making so much money, not for giving it away. In the end, they argue that "Science, freedom and the pursuit of personal profit -- if we can learn to embrace these three ideas as ideals, an unlimited future awaits." Unfortunately, they leave out that that future, while perhaps unlimited to some, is very limited to many. That time period of big-money capitalism that they celebrated also produced significant wealth gaps, exploitation of labor, and the foundations for the kinds of hegemonic control of middle and working classes that occurs today. Contemporary economic conditions and relations appear to reinforce quite readily many of those same kinds of things, with the kinds of anti-labor, unquestioning of business and capital attitudes to which so many of us have become socialized to subscribe; the continuing and increasing wealth gaps that occur both in the United States and around the world; and the many ways that business organizations hold control over people's everyday lives, both at work and in their leisure time. That emphasis on pursuit of personal profit--i.e., the idea that a society of individuals motivated by self-interest--not only reinforces, but expands the inequities already built into the system. Those who have power, capital, and authority have much fuller, greater, and more extensive opportunities to increase those things than those who don't. Thus, we get incredible wealth gaps. We also see, in the process, how oppressions on the basis of race, gender, religion, ability, and other forms of social identities are perpetuated and advanced by the very economic system that purports to espouse opportunity, as those with capital and power can use that to gain more capital and power, while those with less (e.g., women, non-white folks, non-Christian folks, non-wealthy folks, etc.) do not have such opportunities.

Meanwhile, Brook and Ghate leave out a really significant part of the equation--luck. Folks like ex-baseball executive Branch Rickey have been fond of saying, "Luck is the residue of design." There probably is some truth to that in that the more well-designed a plan is, the more contingencies it takes into account, and thus the more it can prevail through adverse situations or be in position to take advantage of serendipitous developments. On the other hand, as humans who are very limited in our capacities to see and know, we must depend on luck regardless of our designs. A poorly timed natural disaster, the development of a sudden debilitating health condition, unforeseeable incompetent or malicious actions by others, or any number of other situations can bring down even well-laid plans. Additionally, there is the element of being able to have the knowledge and foresight to design well in the first place. This involves the concept of cultural capital, as theorized by Pierre Bourdieu, which is cultural knowledge that a person who has can use to gain opportunities within a cultural system. I can work really hard and plan (i.e., design) really meticulously, but if I don't have the cultural capital to know how to take advantage of the system, it likely won't do me a lot of good. As so many of us are not raised in situations in which we can gain that knowledge as we grow up and then are so busy trying to make ends meet as adults that we don't have the requisite time to learn it once we have grown (or we're not allowed access to it based on some discriminating factors within the system), we end up unable to set up good designs and, thus, see pursuit of personal profit come to fruition--or at least as full of fruition as those who have already been given advantages.

In the end, as Brook and Ghate indicate, capitalism does invoke a moral code. It does not ultimately, though, seem to be one that's particularly consistent with a fuller, more working democracy. And, regardless of what they claim, the only "unlimited future" that I see awaiting in the system Brook and Ghate espouse is one for the advantaged, lucky few.