Nov 6

by Staffan Göranson

Under the war cry «Greed is Good», Ayn Rand argued that egoism is a blessing for humankind, and that laissez-faire capitalism is the highest form of morality. Many have adhered to this tantalizing ideology, not only influential economists like Alan Greenspan, but also a large number of ordinary people. Seduced by the vision of more of everything for themselves, many have been closely tracking their pension funds, overborrowing their securities, speculating on financial markets hoping it will make their fortune.

In one of Sweden’s most well-known companies, which I happen to know quite well - a corporation well reputed for its long traditions, reliability, serious products and long-term goals - a new CEO was hired not very long ago. This CEO kept repeating that the three most important objectives for the company were: 1) short-term profits, 2) short-term profits, and 3) short-term profits. Before long, this mantra was eating into all of those core values which had gained this corporation its excellent reputation in the first place.

My father recently passed away at the age of 89. His own father had died in the Spanish flu epidemic of 1920, while my father was still in his mother’s womb. As a young widow with two boys to take care of, my grand-mother struggled to provide for her sons. My father left school at the age of 13 to take on a job in a factory. His first weekly pay was $1.50. He kept 10 cents for himself and offered his mother the rest. The strong sense of satisfaction that he felt as he gave the pay to his mother stayed in his memory throughout his life. Later, once he had established a factory of his own, he found the same kind of inner satisfaction when he saw how products he had designed and developed fulfilled the need of a client.

Throughout my business career, I have come to know many businessmen who have succeeded in building their fortunes. Despite the momentary kicks of excitement of seeing one’s bank account grow, they remain restless souls, unable to find contentment. Greed is greed, even when it is dressed up in philosophical and moral clothing. Its selfishness blinds us to the meaningful, yet simple dimension that is to be found when we contribute to fulfilling the true needs of ourselves and others. Even though little was left in the end of what my father had built during his long entrepreneurial career, the contentment of fulfilling others’ needs remained intact. He left me a rich legacy, not in money but in wisdom.

Mar 27

by Miriam Garvi

Today’s recession is bringing back the rhetoric of greed to the forefront, both among politicians and journalists, as a way of condemning practices now deemed excessive by the electorate, whilst keeping such practices at a comfortable distance from those who have long been in the position to influence the way we view the world and our own role within it.

It has long been held that greed, or self-interest as philosophers and economists endorsing this position would prefer to call it, is the supreme driving force behind enterprising, growth and development, and as such, the very motor of society.

But for those less fortunate who are now paying the price for enacted self-interest, as they find themselves laid off from businesses where top executives are cashing in additional bonuses, or left with mortgage loans that they have no means to service, this economic as well as moral rationale of a self-focused society is a far cry from the reality they are living.

Yet in the spirit of Ayn Rand, defenders of this rationale would argue that we owe nothing to the weak, who have only to opt to overcome their weakness by way of reason.

It is interesting how quickly societal thinking turns elitist when we who are doing the thinking are part of the fortunate few. The idea of «natural selection» and of the survival of the fittest is flattering indeed as long as we are the ones surviving. And if the purpose of it all is to be the last man standing, having beaten all contestants in the short-term, profit-making chicken race, then success is becoming rather void of meaning.

It is high time we wake up and see things as they really are, not as the dominant rhetoric, or the dominant logic, would want us to believe things to be. Let us be greedy, greedy for meaning! Let us engage in that which can bear fruit to the benefit of ourselves and others. Let us make a profit, but not a fortune. And let us reinvest for the benefit of mankind.

Feb 2

by Miriam Garvi

This week-end saw the completion of the 2009 World Economic Forum in Davos. Since the forum launched its «Davos Question» last year, asking people to name one thing that would make the world a better place, future prospects have plunged into darkness. With jobs, homes, savings and pensions being threatened, who is thinking of making the world a better place?

The world’s elite of financiers, politicians and business people, anxious to restore confidence in a global financial and economic system, are calling for swift and decisive action. According to Tony Blair and others at the WEF, it seems that what we need is an enterprise system that is free but less greedy. So much for the professed virtue of selfishness.

Not so very long ago, a voice in the wilderness was calling for the kind of leadership that paired outlook and foresight with a concern for the well-being of coming generations. The voice was that of Georges Doriot, Harvard professor and father of venture capital; his vision that of an «Institute of Man»:

I have thought that we should have an Institute of Man.
This would be a group of outstanding individuals who could evaluate the progress which Man has made.
In light of this progress and the background of this progress this group could give some attention to the problems facing man today.
From these people the country and its leaders could seek advice.
But so far, no one has liked my idea and perhaps our leaders would not listen to such scholars even if the Institute existed.

Doriot’s idea was not about change, nor about remedying a system running wild. He was talking about the kind of constant visionary outlook that will view the world in terms of purposes, needs and implications, a goalistic dialogue not bound by any political or economic agenda.

Today, so many resources are poured into taming the monster we created. Let those with passion and integrity rise and show the good that can be done amidst the darkness.

Nov 27

by Miriam Garvi

With the on-going financial crisis affecting major financial markets all over the world, even Alan Greenspan, one of Ayn Rand’s most devoted followers, has admitted to finding a flaw in his/her ideology.

A set-back for those who profess that greed will make the world a better place?

The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, however, are keeping their mantra: Liberalize, Deregulate, Privatize. Come to us for capital and we will help you reform your economies. Open up domestic markets to foreign investment, roll out the red carpet for the multinationals, remove all the brake pads in order for capital to flow freely.

To whose benefit?

 IMF and World Bank

Paul Wolfowitz, former World Bank director, illustrates how anybody can claim to be passionate about «helping the people who have less than one dollar a day». But these mammoth institutions are pressuring for reforms that will streamline such markets according to Western standards. And so their intention is not to empower Third World populations but to subject them to a regime where they are denied the right to exploit their own natural resources whilst being burdened with increasing debts.

Governments of Thirld World countries are not free to choose a path that they believe would be good for their people. In the past, leaders who have come in the way of foreign economic interests have had a macabre tendency to end up dead. We remember Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso, Jaime Roldó of Ecuador, Omar Torrijos of Panama. With the invisible hand of the CIA or of a former colonial power lurking in the background.

As entire populations of poorer countries find themselves eating out of the hand of the IMF and the World Bank, this is the enslavement of our times. Liberalization, deregulation, privatization have become synonymous with neo-slavery. And there are penalties to be paid for those who struggle not to be trapped in this system.

When greed threatens our future pensions or the college funds of our children, we feel compelled to react. But who will stand up for other people’s right to choose their own direction?