Culture Wars
How Much is Enough?
by Jimmy Hopper
Last week I picked up the morning paper and read that Mark Cuban, perhaps best known as the volatile owner of the NBA Dallas Mavericks, had been indicted for insider trading by the Securties and Exchange commission. He sold shares of a company prior to its public offering supposedly based on confidential knowledge, thus saving himself from a loss of $750,000. I have absolutly no “confidential knowledge” of Mr. Cuban’s guilt or innocence; and given his great resources, the verdict will probably be innocent no matter what the facts; such is our system, but the indictment shocked me.
Mr. Cuban has a reported net worth of $2.5 Billion; that’s with a “B”. He can put his hands on 2,500 groups of a million dollars. Thus, as ridiculous as it sounds to you and I, $750,000 fits the description of “chump change” to Mr. Cuban. Apart from any moral reasons, why in the world would he put himself in a position that had the potential of this one for trouble or even jail time (see Martha Stewart and Leona Helmsley.) Three possibilities came to mind.
First, Mr. Cuban is a highly competetive individual. This competetitiveness is often visible on the sidelines fo Mavs games, as he is very much into every play and nuance of every play. One would assume that he brings this same competitiveness to his business ventures, so is this indictment simply a result of a “game on” mentality?
Secondly, is Mr. Cuban so secure in his wealth and power that he considers himself bullet proof and its adjunct, that he is, literally, above the law? This is certainly not unprecedented, and there are many instances that could be pointed to in that regard. Ms. Helmsley’s famous statement, “We don’t pay taxes. Little people pay taxes” is a prime exemple. Also significant in the decision making process is the fact that she, another billionaire, served time for tax evasion.
Thirdly, there is the title of this post, “How much is enough?” When billionaire J. Paul Getty was asked this, his reply was “Just a little more.” Is this a function of the two possibilities above or is it a related to the fallenness of man in a fallen world; our Reformed world view?
Tim, in a sermon recently, spoke of the fact that money and power does not corrupt the king; he is corrupt to begin with and the money and power simply allows him to indulge himself more. This situation can very easily speak to that, but what stands out to the Reformed Christian is that the world is fallen, and that “a little more”, even at another’s expense is what is expected in a world that is corrupt at its very base and core.
Posted by Jimmy Hopper at November 22, 2008 09:46 AM
Jimmy,
I don’t mean this comment in any way to be construed as an endorsement of greed or insider trading. However, I do want to put up a mild defense of capitalism.
Since becoming reformed in my thinking, it has occurred to me that capitalism is the most effective system of economics in the world because it relies on the truth of the fall. Capitalist economics posits that everyone will act in his or her self interest, if given the freedom to do so. It is relatively easy to predict what is in someone’s self interest, because that is the central truth of the fall, and we all know it. All of this makes a capitalist economic system (comparatively) predictable and thus allocates resources in a manner that is (more or less) rational.
Competing economic systems such as socialism and communism rely on an ultimately flawed premise - that people will act for the economic good of society or the collective rather than themselves. Anyone who has a shred of honesty about the human condition must admit that this will never, ever happen. The “purer” systems such as the Soviets have already fallen as a result of this fallacy. Those that are blends of capitalism and socialism - like Western Europe - perennially lag behind the US and will, I believe, ultimately prove unworkable.
Capitalism obviously, as current economic conditions (and examples like Stewart, Helmsley, and perhaps Cuban if guilty) demonstrate, is not perfect, and acting in one’s self interest can lead to the exploitation of others. What will distinguish those who act in their self-interest, yet not in a way to abuse and exploit others? Only the Spirit of God. Without that, Helmsley, Stewart, et al, merely carry capitalism to its logical end.
Clay, Thanks for the comment, and I certainly wasn’t arguing against capitalism, or for any alternate system. Cuban, Stewart, and Helmsley, et al, all support my world view, that the world is fallen, and that it is more often than not, amazing how deep into depravity it, and we, really are.
What blew me away are the chances these people take when they do things that ultimately are NOT in their self interest. In Cuban’s case; he might lose .0003% of his total net worth if he doesn’t sell early based on his information (all if the government’s case is correct.) Even mine and your lifestyle would not be seriously affected by that. For Mark Cuban, it’s simply laughable. I think the amount Martha Stewart was convicted for was $23,000 +/-. Whatever his motivation, that is a dumb stunt, and he’s obviously quite intelligent and competent in many ways.
Regarding capitalism, I grew up in fear and hatred of “godless communism,” and it was godless, perhaps to a degree never before seen in human society since its leaders decided God was the enemy and legislated against the church. On the other hand, capitalism has been good to me economically, because it does work in a fallen world and I was willing to work within the system. One thing that it does share with communism (and any other man made systems) is that it also is “godless.” I’ll confess that my irriation meter probably goes off too quickly when our government and economic system are equated with God. And you are absolutely right when you say that capitalism’s logical end is abuse and exploitation. History proves that in literally thousands of cases and even eras. In the absence of God and morality, apparently greed overwhelms everything, even common sense.
Jimmy,
As to your point about the .0003% of Cuban’s net worth, I get what you’re saying, and any rational person should see it the same way. To put it in economics-speak (paging Patrick Cooper) the marginal utility of that extra money will probably not be worth what he loses in his criminal prosecution.
As I was thinking about this though, I began to wonder about the truth of that last statement. I’ve heard it said that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Taking Martha Stewart as a case in point, it would be fascinating to know whether her notoriety as a result of her criminal problem actually wound up making her more or less wealthy. As perverse as our culture seems to have become, it would not completely surprise me to find that the answer is more.