Corporations in Contemporary Culture

"Greed...is good" - Wall Street (1987 screenplay)

One of this summer’s great box office disappointments was Deception, a romantic comedy/caper film. Why did it fail? It featured Julia Roberts, the top Hollywood actress for gross revenue for two decades. And it had a fail-safe plot line; it featured American corporations as venal, ego-driven enterprises whose desire to rip off their customers is topped only by their desire to ruin their competitors.

Time and again, the “dream factory” in Hollywood uses the modern corporation as the preferred villain at each opportunity. And it’s not just Hollywood. Our national health care debate is tagged by the left as a necessary battle with the drug and insurance industry, who will otherwise rob us blind and leave us dead for the sake of their next quarterly report. Unions have as their raison d’etre the need for a powerful force to counterbalance the corporate drive to exploit and discard their labor force. Consumer advocates, trial lawyers, and environmentalists all do their best to paint the corporation as the enemy, willing to stoop to any crime or despoliation to further their insatiable need for more profit. Tobacco and oil companies have traditionally been seen as most evil, but today investment banks and hedge funds are fighting hard to be awarded top honors in despicability in the public eye.

And yet, the model of the limited liability joint stock company has spread across the globe. It has come to dominate the economy of the former great Communist powers, Russia and China. It has revolutionized life in the Third World by bringing cell phone service to nearly every tribe and village. Corporations have been the leading force in globalization, pulling hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in India, China, and most of the Far East. It was the corporate model that moved postwar Germany and Japan from war-ravaged wrecks to industrial powerhouses. It was corporations that made possible the mass-production and distribution of life-saving medicines, green revolution seed varieties, the media revolutions caused by VCRs, CDs, DVDs, and MP3 players. The corporate model has made such an improvement in the lives of nearly every person on the planet. How can such a force for progress be so demonized by our culture?

Of course, man is more than just an economic animal. Most people rightly put family (and faith) above material prosperity. Money can’t buy happiness, as they say. But let’s judge people by what they do as well as by what they say. And any serious student of humanity will quickly see that the quest for material success is a strong driver of human behavior.

Is this because we live in a consumer society? Is our thirst for creature comforts because we are bombarded with advertising? Is materialism a new phenomena, a result of industrialization and mass media and culture?

My guess is that those things play a role, but are not the drivers. The story of King Midas long predates the arrival of broadcast television. Status is linked to prosperity in primitive tribes as much as it is in modern cities.

Material prosperity also allows some undoubted societal goods. A wealthy na-tion can afford better hospitals and schools. It can perform more scientific research, and support more theater and more art. Just as importantly, material prosperity is something many people value for its own sake and are willing to work hard for. In a free society, the pursuit of wealth should be allowed, just as the pursuit of birdwatching, novel writing, or any other activity that does no harm on its own.

Yet in some cultural circles (notably the more wealthy ones), something about material success is offensive. It has become seen as crass, lacking in virtue, and even in some sense immoral. Corporations, as organizations dedicated to creating value (for if they don’t, their customers desert them and they fail), are held in contempt and disgust. Corporate leaders are depicted as pigs, or crooks, or slavedrivers, or some combination thereof.

The truth is that wealth provides freedom and security. Having your own re-sources makes you less dependent on government or charity. It gives you the luxury of seeking your own answers to the questions of life. Wealth is not, and should never be, a license to ignore or harm others. When wealth subverts law and permits abuse, then it does become a menace. But that is not an intrinsic feature of wealth. Instead, it is a feature of a society with poor governance and without the rule of law.

Corporations have proven to be the best way for society to create (and distribute) wealth, prosperity, and individual independence and freedom. Corporations must live by the rules, of course. But as long as they do, they should be celebrated, not demonized.