I Love Greedy Scoundrels

A recent conversation with an interventionist-minded friend wound up on an interesting topic. It seems that, when it comes right down to it, he, and others of the same mind, feel that the economic problems in America stem from greed. The scoundrels who run companies and corporations have nothing else in mind other than taking advantage of those of us that are not so 'fortunate' as to be in the position of employing labor and bringing products and services into the market.

So I got to thinking about it. Is he right? Is every rich man in America a greedy scoundrel? Or, perhaps, are they only being justly remunerated for greatly increasing our standard of living with the products that they have brought forth? Considering the habits of a typical day, and the attitudes of many individuals, might provide the answer.

I like to sleep in the dark. However, when I awake in the morning at six o'clock, the first thing I need is some light. This used to mean keeping a candle or a lantern next to the bed and lighting the bulky instrument in relative darkness. Even once this operation had been completed, the light would only illuminate a space in a radius of four or five feet. Now, we simply flip a switch and the entire room is flooded with light. We have that old greedy scalawag Benjamin Franklin to thank for that. I guess when he discovered electricity, an invention that would change the world, he should have just given it away to any man that would ask for it. Instead, he started the first electric company, whereby this wonderful gift proliferated throughout society. What a louse.

My next need is that of clothing. Clothes used to be hand-woven from strong and, therefore, coarse linens. They were less than what we would consider comfortable, to say the least. They were also very expensive when compared to what we spend on clothes these days, but rarely lasted very long. A common man could almost always count the different sets of clothes he owned on one hand. Now, however, I, a man of common means, can go to my closet and pick from an almost endless variety of colors and styles what will be my mode of dress for the day. We have a money-grubbing slime-bucket named Edmund Cartwright to thank for that. I guess when he invented the power loom, an invention that made weaving wool and other textiles cheaper and quicker, he should have given as many as he could build to anyone that would ask. Instead, he sold them to the owners of mercantile operations for a profit. What a creep.

Once I've prepared myself, at least reasonably well, to face the world for the day, I then need to go to work to provide a living for my family. In the past, my commute of 45 miles would have constituted a day's work of itself. Such a journey would have required hours upon hours of traveling in an uncomfortable coach drawn by horses on dirt roads with minimum shelter from the elements. Now, I can make the distance in about 45 minutes in a climate-controlled compartment with every convenience imaginable within an arms reach. We have that predatory rascal Henry Ford to thank for that. I guess when he discovered the methods to mass produce the automobile, he should have just given the technology, and the cars he fabricated with it, to anyone who would ask for it. Instead, he started a car manufacturing plant and an auto dealership whereby this wonderful convenience proliferated throughout society. What a boor.

When I come home in the evenings, sometimes I like to speak to my mother, who lives a few towns over. In the past, communication like this was quite cumbersome. It required a person to go down to a designated spot (remember you would have had to walk there at the time), deliver a handwritten message to a gentleman, and have a series of horsemen race the message across the countryside. Now, I can pick up the phone, punch a series of buttons, and the soothing tones of my mom's voice will come to me over a network of voice lines. We have that covetous sleazeball Alexander Graham Bell to thank for this. I guess when he invented the telephone he should have given as many of them away as he could to anybody that would simply ask. Instead, he started the first telephone company, by which this wonderful convenience proliferated throughout society. What a stinker.

On and on the list goes of creeps who have taken advantage of the common man. That greedy peddler Bill Gates really got over on us with the invention of the PC. Boy, did Thomas Edison ever pull a doozy on us when he invented the light bulb. Philo T. Farnsworth must have really had it in for us when he invented the television. Guntenberg's printing press, Eli Whitney's cotton gin, Percy L. Spencer's microwave, Jack Kilby's integrated circuit, Thomas Midgeley Jr.'s leaded gasoline-all, no doubt, the ideas of greedy opportunists.

Any reasonable person knows that this is hardly the case. In fact, these men have done a great service to the world. They have brought forth amazing products that have changed our lives in every way imaginable. They have made conveniences and a standard of living available to the common man that would have been unimaginable at the time of their invention.

Should we not praise, rather than revile, them?

The problem seems to be that they have done the unforgivable. They have accepted pecuniary gain in exchange for bestowing these great gifts upon us. In short, they made money off of their inventions.

The fact is that these men and thousands and thousands of other, less notable entrepreneurs, are just like you and me. In the process of doing something good for themselves, they have done good for mankind, just as you and I do good for our families and those that depend on us when we go about bettering ourselves. Adam Smith understood this when he spoke about human nature in The Wealth of Nations. He said that it was not out of the "benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages." (Emphasis added) We find that in a free society, one cannot help himself without helping others. However, it is not the help that others will receive that spurs us into action; it is the thought of self-improvement that does this.

The truth is, we get out of society what we put into it. These men, and others like them who have attained great wealth, are only being justly compensated for the great contributions they have made to their fellow man. What we must realize is that these contributions never would have been made available to society at large-perhaps never would have been thought of at all-if not for the fact that these individuals would be handsomely rewarded for bringing them to the market.

If this weren't the case, the PC might have only ever been a neat little electronic device stuck back in a garage somewhere that Bill Gates would use as a conversation piece when talking to guests about his youth. Instead, every schoolchild in America is exposed to them before they leave elementary school. Gasoline might have been a liquid that propelled some quirky farm equipment in the Midwest. Instead it powers almost every car on the road. The formula for the atom bomb might have been lost among the millions of thoughts discarded from the mind of Albert Einstein. Instead, it was used to save the world from Nazi tyranny. Thankfully, Einstein was paid quite nicely for his work.

Companies like Microsoft, GE, Ford, Wal-Mart, ExxonMobil, and others are merely the conduit through which these great products are routed from their producers to us, the consumers. So why are they represented as villains?

The answer finds many forms and names-jealousy, lack of self-worth, hatred-but they all stem from the same philosophy of class warfare. Karl Marx was the first to promulgate the theory that the wealthy property owners exploited their laborers to obtain their profit rather than their profit being a remuneration for the service they provided of producing goods that society needed. He said the arrangement was, by nature, one of exploitation. He explicitly denied that any arrangement could ever be made voluntarily by which a laborer would agree to work for the wages that he was being paid.

Much of what is being said today is nothing more than a poorly concealed redressing of Marx's original doctrine. Those who cloak themselves in the self-righteousness of 'consumer advocacy' and 'worker's rights' say that these large companies are taking advantage of hapless workers who are forced to work for nominal wages, perhaps in less than desirable conditions. They can't believe that some might actually prefer the low-paying work to starvation or bondage to a welfare check.

They have a large portion of the rest of the public believing that this is exploitation. They would rather have us forget that the people doing the work that they label as 'demeaning' seem to have a resolve to better themselves and use the position they are currently in, however low it may be deemed to be by others, as a foothold by which to improve their lot later on in life.

It represents a classic victim's mentality. We all know that one person, who, no matter what happens to him or her in life, is always the victim. None of the misfortunes that assail them are of their own making. These people take their dissatisfaction with their own lives and attempt to transfer it on to the rest of us by convincing us that all of us, not just themselves, are being 'taken advantage of'.

Those spewing these sophisms of hatred have allowed themselves to be sucked into the victim's mentality and have given up all control over their own life. Everything that happens to them is an act that is being 'perpetrated' upon them by someone else. When they don't get into the school they want, it's because the president of the university wanted to keep them out. When they are looked over for a promotion, it's because the boss hates them. And so it happens that everything they have in life is because someone else has mandated that it is the most they were 'allowed' to have. It is the ultimate denial of personal responsibility and the ultimate abdication of one's own humanity.

People who go about living their lives in this manner, quite frankly, can never imagine self-improvement. Everyone, they think, hates them. 'The Man' would never think of 'letting' them advance beyond their current position in society. These individuals could never imagine themselves owning a business. They could never see themselves investing in an idea that might be found useful to society. They would never allow themselves to think they could invent a product or service that would change the world. The fact of the matter is very simple. They can't see themselves enjoying prosperity.

So what does this have to do with the greed of the large companies that are preying upon the public? The connection lies in this: those who seem themselves as perpetual victims cannot conceive of these companies as doing good for society. These companies, to them, are but another instrument adding to a string of victimizations in their unfulfilled life.

The fact, however, is that these companies are delivering great, wonderful products to society that greatly enhance our lives and bring us unprecedented conveniences. But they don't do it for free. They don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because they can make money for their investors, executives, and employees and those who depend on them for their livelihood.

I, for one, don't mind. I'm glad to have the products. I don't find it egregious that those responsible for bringing them to the market are well compensated. In fact, I hope they continue to be. They next guy looking to make a buck may come up with something that allows me to think this document into existence rather than do all this typing.

Until that day comes, I guess I'll keep on letting Larry Page and Sergey Brin rake me over the coals. That's right. The owners of Google have provided the application I am using to construct this document as a free service available over the Internet. I love it. I use it all the time. It's infinitely easier than dealing with ink ribbons and White-Out. But they didn't make this great service available just so I could be released from the cumbersome chains of the typewriter. I think they're making just a little bit of money while doing it. At last check the twosome were estimated to be worth over $500 million a piece. Don't you just hate those greedy scoundrels? I don't. I love them.