The sign of the dollar

Warning: Over the past few weeks I have been reading Ayn Rand essays and Atlas Shrugged. As a result, today’s post may appear overly Objectivist.

In recent history, it has become a common trend to slander rich capitalists and call money “the root of all evil.” Today, I would like to address these claims.

First, I would like to reiterate the theme I discussed in a previous post. During the auto bailout hearing, many Americans were shocked to discover how blatantly greedy the auto company executives actually are. However, as I stated previously, we should not be fooled; obviously, these executives got to where they are by being shrewd, profit-seeking businessmen, not public servants. However, many would argue that this is a virtue, not a sin. In a capitalist society, business owners are the true “prime movers” of the world (though our “mixed” economy dilutes this somewhat). Again, some would consider this a good thing, but others would disagree.

The main argument for this concept of industrialists as prime movers stems from egoism, particularly the egoist refutation of altruistic theories of morals. According to egoism, a person’s purpose is to act in his/her own self-interest. Rational egoism alters this definition somewhat, stating that a rational action is one that is in one’s self-interest; Objectivists and others have altered this definition to include certain other qualities such as self-esteem. In any case, according to egoism there is no reason follow any doctrine that involves justifying one’s existence to others. Thus, (if egoism is correct) charity is not a moral or virtuous action. For egoists, this “proves” that there is nothing morally wrong with profit seeking. Rational egoists would add that it is necessary to be rational in order to create anything of value to human beings. Thus, an irrational person cannot create anything of value (including food) and is therefore at the mercy of those who think rationally. In terms of economics, irrational people are parasitic dependents who live off of others by seizing goods or receiving them as charity. However, for better or worse, this viewpoint is not a very popular one in today’s world.

Second, I would like to address the topic of “money” itself. In essence, money can be defined as “anything that is not a good or service that can be exchanged for goods or services.” This means that money is simply a medium of exchange, or a form of credit. In other words, it is not an absolute—it only has value in relation to human beings in particular scenarios. Its value is determined by a society as a whole.

A society with money has obvious advantages over a society that uses the barter system; thus, a society with money is usually superior to a bartering society. Also, if money is present in a particular society, certain aspects of that society’s moral code and status can be inferred. For example, if a society has paper money, this means that the society is orderly and civilized enough to handle it, which means the society is stable (remember that money completely loses its value in times of crisis, since it simply becomes worthless paper). (According to Objectivism, the value of money in a society is also a gauge of how capitalistic the society is: in theory, a society that values money more has less of what Ayn Rand calls “looters” and “moochers,” meaning it is also more laissez-faire. However, this is not always true, and there are numerous counterexamples that disprove this. That, though, is a discussion for another day.)   

The point is, in light of all this the claim “money is the root of all evil” looks absurd. This should be no surprise, though, since the phrase was most likely coined to lash out at the rich. In this context, the phrase can be considered half-true since the imbalance of wealth probably perpetuates class differences (according to Marx), but money itself is not the root of the problem. 

**On the topic of Objectivism: it turns out that Alan Greenspan was an Objectivist and a personal friend of Ayn Rand's. Scary!