Steven Pearlstein today uses a viewing of Michael Moore's latest film as a springboard to consider ethics and responsibility in business. It's worth a read. Even the Pope gets into the act, being quoted as saying that "Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty." (Reading this, I immediately imagined Stalin asking, "How many corporations does the Pope have?" But I digress.)
The columnist's evidence seems a little thin -- mainly, a few young people and mavericks yearning for a little more meaning in their humdrum profit-seeking lives. If that in fact signals a new impetus for a generation of businesspeople who are motivated not just by profit, but at least by profit operating in tandem with a social ethic, I'm all for it. A trend of that kind, if it lasts, could help prevent some of the excesses of the past decade -- the excesses that culminated in our current economic doldrums.
Still, I think it is too optimistic to conclude that capitalism is the "least bad" system because it "is best at correcting its own excesses." In fact, I can't think of too many points in history where that has occurred; the fact is that self-policing doesn't work, and the hand of government has almost always been required to put a stop to abuses.
Pearlstein observes that people are profoundly disillusioned and deeply mistrustful of the capitalist ethos after two decades that haven't delivered economic gains for the average household. True. And it seems to me that many are equally disillusioned with a government that until recently has made little effort to "correct the excesses" of capitalism. Surrounded by a dark forest full of marauding bears, people will warily go about their daily lives; it's when the watchdog doesn't bark that they become seriously fearful.
Comments