Center for Business and Economic Research - Ball State University


CBER Data Center
Projects and PublicationsEconomic IndicatorsWeekly CommentaryCommunity Asset InventoryManufacturing Scorecard

About

Commentaries are published weekly and distributed through the Indianapolis Business Journal and many other print and online publications. Disclaimer

RSS Feed

Disclaimer

The views expressed in these commentaries do not reflect those of Ball State University or the Center for Business and Economic Research.

Recent

HB1004 Would Restrict Hospital MonopoliesIndiana’s not-for-profit hospitals are among the most profitable businesses in the United States.

The 2023 ForecastThe reason for worry about a recession is the Federal Reserve’s response to high inflation.

Some Labor Market Facts You Won’t Read ElsewhereIndiana is simply not producing a 21st century workforce.

Three Types of Public DebtAll types of public debt are effectively transfers of wealth from the future to our present selves.

View archives

Top Tags

jobs and employment 225
economics 173
education 144
economic development 141
taxes 122
state and local government 119
finance 107
recession 100
budget and spending 98
indiana 96
Browse all tags
Reporter / Admin Login

March 31, 2008

Corporate Greed and Election Year Rhetoric

It is election year again, and talk of corporate greed, that stalwart in the lexicon of electioneering, once again fills the airwaves.  An economics columnist usually wouldn’t write about matters of sin.  But attacks on greed always seem to have a policy message attached, and that is a big problem for all of us.

Formally, corporations cannot be greedy.  Corporations, not being human, cannot feel the weight of sin and so do not exhibit greed anymore than they do pride, envy or lust.  (And recent news would suggest lust is the special province of the public sector). Leaving these flawed rhetorical flourishes aside, there are bigger problems in targeting greed in an election year campaign.

Corporate greed is a bit dodgy to define.  Is it the accumulation of wealth, or the behavior of a corporation that is the metric of greed?  Here’s where the campaign piffle becomes deep.  Not having windows on men’s souls, we can only look to accumulated wealth or behavior to identify greed.  Both measures will be found wanting. 

The accrual of wealth cannot be a bad thing in and of itself.  Even in the extreme, for every corporate scandal, there’s a Carnegie and Gates, copiously transferring their wealth for the good of others.  Even more puzzling is that both men continued to accrue corporate wealth, while also engaging in private philanthropy.  Further, sin (and that’s what I personally believe greed to be) is hardly the special province of the rich.  The incidence of greed among pickpockets is at least as high as it is among corporate executives. 

If we look to corporate behavior for greed, we will likewise be disappointed.  Such things as violations of environmental standards, anti- rust laws and the like are judged bad (that is why we have such legislation).  Here again, the local gas station is at least as likely a culprit of both misdeeds as any international corporation.

Associating business practices with sin is simply lazy logic.  The enduring strength of Adam Smith’s thinking debunked this notion two centuries ago.  Writing in 1776 he tells us:  “It is not from 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.”  Smith goes on to say “. . . every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society, as great as he can.. . . he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” It cannot be better said. 

Adam Smith told us something that might serve us well to frequently remember: while greed is bad for the individual, it is irrelevant for the economy.  Politicians who pander with talk of corporate greed have clearly exhausted their relevant ideas.  They speak of greed, in hopes of exciting envy. And that is a real sin. 

Link to this commentary: https://commentaries.cberdata.org/120/corporate-greed-and-election-year-rhetoric

Tags: election


About the Author

Michael Hicks cberdirector@bsu.edu

Michael J. Hicks, PhD, is the director of the Center for Business and Economic Research and the George and Frances Ball distinguished professor of economics in the Miller College of Business at Ball State University. Hicks earned doctoral and master’s degrees in economics from the University of Tennessee and a bachelor’s degree in economics from Virginia Military Institute. He has authored two books and more than 60 scholarly works focusing on state and local public policy, including tax and expenditure policy and the impact of Wal-Mart on local economies.

© Center for Business and Economic Research, Ball State University

About Ball State CBER Data Center

Ball State CBER Data Center is one-stop shop for economic data including demographics, education, health, and social capital. Our easy-to-use, visual web tools offer data collection and analysis for grant writers, economic developers, policy makers, and the general public.

Ball State CBER Data Center (cberdata.org) is a product of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. CBER's mission is to conduct relevant and timely public policy research on a wide range of economic issues affecting the state and nation. Learn more.

Terms of Service

Center for Business and Economic Research

Ball State University • Whitinger Business Building, room 149
2000 W. University Ave.
Muncie, IN 47306-0360
Phone:
765-285-5926
Email:
cber@bsu.edu
Website:
www.bsu.edu/cber
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/BallStateCBER
Twitter:
www.twitter.com/BallStateCBER
Close