Thus read one of many (frequently incoherent and occasionally contradictory) handwritten signs at Occupy Boston this weekend. Something about the intellectual feebleness of the statement made me want to smirk to myself as I walked past Dewey Square on a sunny Sunday morning. I feel a similar urge to smirk at the lone tent in the wilderness on the corner of College Green in Hanover (particularly when its Occupants abandon ship on the arrival of even moderate snowfall.) Yet, smirking is an insufficient response. My fellow MBA students from a peer school were rightly criticized recently for taunting protesters from the Occupy movement (on camera) with chants of, “Get a job!” and “We are the 1%!” For all its many flaws in thought and execution, the Occupy movement lays down an important moral challenge for all aspiring captains of industry, perhaps especially for tomorrow’s financiers.
In the last meeting of his Investments class last week, Ken French challenged his students to debate the moral duties and social utility of investors. What became very clear is that little is very clear. My fellow University of Glasgow alumnus Adam Smith is well known for his book “The Wealth of Nations” but less well known for its twin publication “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”. His intention was that both be read and acted upon in tandem; that no commercial activity should be conducted without thought for its moral consequences.
I have just watched “When Bankers Were Good”, a documentary by the wonderfully witty Ian Hislop that investigates the great tradition of philanthropy in Victorian Britain, particularly amongst its financiers. Hislop quoted Matthew 19:23-24: “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God”. Yet the Puritan virtues of diligence, prudence and sobriety are a stable foundation for business success – just ask Mitt Romney – and many folks of good character amass great wealth as a result. Hislop concludes that the avoidance of avarice is paramount: Rev. Giles Fraser (now formerly) of St. Paul’s in London says, “Drinking champagne and driving Porsches is corrosive to the soul.” And the documentary appears to propose philanthropy as the panacea.
Though there were many notable financier-philanthropists in Victorian times (Edward Tuck, for one!) and Hislop hangs his bowler hat on a few examples, the notion that bankers were once unanimously good is disproved during the documentary. Dickensian characters like Ebenezer Scrooge were not without inspiration, and Hislop catalogues some of the more seedy beasts of the day. What’s more, prominent examples of financier-philanthropists can be found today – see Warren Buffet. The notion of a golden era of philanthropy is questionable. As is the notion that philanthropy is a universally and unequivocally positive phenomenon. Once again, it becomes very clear that little is very clear.
While Lloyd Blankfein’s claim that he and his colleagues were “doing God’s work” was ill advised in the circumstances, the notion of financiers as a societally positive force should not be alien to us. A recent Vanity Fair article espoused the role of banking and taxation in building the world’s greatest nation. Efficient capital markets are a vital instrument for economic development, effective resource allocation and fostering of innovation that improves all of our lives. Of course, we cannot simply “END BANKING NOW”. (How does the author of that sign expect he or she will collect their next pay – or welfare, and I present the option absent of judgment – check?) Nevertheless, we, as MBA students and expectant leaders of tomorrow, must address the moral and societal questions being posed.
We must consider narrow issues (How should we as individual business leaders act?) and broad issues that receive too little honest, impartial and intellectual consideration (e.g. the role of government). Most areas are gray. The Rothschilds believed passionately in a moral duty to ameliorate the condition of the impoverished masses through charity, yet abhorred the notion of high taxes – effectively, of “nationalized philanthropy”. My father would vehemently disagree – “Are you a Tory now?!” he recently asked me when we were discussing such issues.
The conclusion to this (regrettably lengthy) post is that I will have an opportunity to contemplate many of these issues in greater depth and debate them with a diverse group of classmates in the coming weeks. It is a requirement of the Tuck curriculum that all students take at least 1.5 “ethical” credits to graduate, and I will take mine through a business ethics course this December. Little is likely to be very clear – I’m looking forward to navigating the murk of some of the greatest challenges for today’s and tomorrow’s thoughtful business leaders.
Read the full article: END BANKING NOW