Can an Objectivist become a billionaire?

[RayK 0]

I am asking this question (from the topic title), mainly to see if there is something that I have missed in my own thinking on this subject. In my own thinking done on this subject, which is a lot, my conclusion for now is to lean toward it not happenning today. One of the main reasons is ethics and why I placed this question under ethics.

If I am a manufacturer (hypothetical), I will have to compete against corporations that have their manufacturing done in China or some other third world country that is ethically against America. As an Objectivist I am unwilling to strengthen my enemies by paying them to create my products, and also many other reasons.

This is not to say that there is not a market for good quality and high priced products, but it will be limited. When someone, the average person, can go and buy a $30 pair of jeans instead of my similar, but possibly better quality, jeans for $45, they will most likely choose the cheaper.

Most people in todays society do not care where the prodcuts come from as long as they get them cheaply. The average person does not care or does not see that our countries businesses are doing business with our economic and political opposites/enemies. These type of people just want the product today and do not care what the consequences of tomorrow will bring.

The lack of a rational ethics is not just in the consumer but also the producers/company owners. In my own company I have had and still have many wealthy people that run businesses. These people sometimes laugh and shake their heads in dismay when they hear my comments on business and ethics. Their comments vary of course, but it is generally something like; someday Ray you will learn that ethics do not play a part in business choices.

In conclusion I would like to state that I am not denying the wealth created by some Objectivist or their companies, but this is still very limited. What we need of course is what the ARI is already doing, but I think a rational society is still a long way off. For me this means making it to a billionaire and all the values that could come from that wealth will most likely not happen. I am fine with this as I am unwilling to give up my values/ethics for wealth alone.

[Joss Delage 0]

Not sure what the ultimate answer is, but people are certainly willing to spend more for quality. It might be limited, but if you choose a large enough market, then the "quality" sub-segment will be enough to generate multi-billions in profits. In fact, some products have been succesful in completely displacing pre-existing low price / low quality products (e.g., Starbucks has stolen most of the market share from low price / low quality coffee).

[Alon Tsin 0]

I think that you are right. Don't forget (in addition to everything you said) that many billionares in the world (especially the Russian Oligarchs) gained their money in an Illegal (and obviously immoral) ways. I'll even quote my uncle who said :"The first million obtained is always dirty". While I don't believe in generalizations like this, it is correct for the majority of billionaires in the world.

I am fine with this as I am unwilling to give up my values/ethics for wealth alone.

I think that this is the most important sentence in the post. While it is okay (and even more than okay) to want to be wealthy, the wealth has to be achieved while complying with your values. If it isn't , the millions you may get will be worthless.

[Joss Delage 0]

I'll even quote my uncle who said :"The first million obtained is always dirty". While I don't believe in generalizations like this, it is correct for the majority of billionaires in the world.

Huh? Michael Dell? Jeff Bezos? Bill Gates?

[Rose Lake 0]

New inventions can completely revolutionize entire industries and markets. So I think that deserving participants involved in various phases of the invention and marketing of new product(s) or service(s) -- could still conceivably make a billion dollars or more. I don't think that one can say, at this point, that it's impossible to create enough market value to earn a billion dollars as the result of one's work.

[MichaelJ 0]

I certainly wouldn't mind a billion for my main idea under development at the moment.

[Alon Tsin 0]

I'll even quote my uncle who said :"The first million obtained is always dirty". While I don't believe in generalizations like this, it is correct for the majority of billionaires in the world.

Huh? Michael Dell? Jeff Bezos? Bill Gates?

As I said, there are some (not much) for whom the generalization soes not apply. However, consider Roman Abramovitch and the Russian Oligarchs, consider the Arabian millionaires etc...

[KendallJ 0]

I'll even quote my uncle who said :"The first million obtained is always dirty". While I don't believe in generalizations like this, it is correct for the majority of billionaires in the world.

Your statement amounts to, "While I don't believe in generalizations like this, I believe this is a valid generalization." Which is it?

If I am a manufacturer (hypothetical), I will have to compete against corporations that have their manufacturing done in China or some other third world country that is ethically against America. As an Objectivist I am unwilling to strengthen my enemies by paying them to create my products, and also many other reasons.

I believe that this amounts to mind-body dichotomy, or "as long is there is no one out there of pure rationality, then I cannot do business."

First of all, if you really want to keep yourself "pure" then there are lots of innovations that would apply to developed world sorts of products.

Second, (and I know there is a thread about this around somewhere) I think you can do business with men in a country like China and do it morally. Peikoff addressed this very point in one of his lecture series (Art of Thinking, I think), where he desparately wanted a recording of a turn of the century Operetta done by a Russian opera. He asked Miss Rand about the ethics of trading with an avowed Communist regime. She said that he needed to weigh this in his own value set, but if he found more inspiration in the work to then fight the philosophy of Communism than his trader got from the money he paid then it was well worth it (and to pick up a copy for her as well).

One takes personal risks by doing business with someone of mixed premises or with someone living in a country of mixed or bad premises, but then that is true of people you do business with in the developed world. As long as you recognize the risk and believe the benefit you derive empowers those who see things as you do more than those who see things contrary, then this strikes me as moral.

Which means, yes, you can be a billionaire in todays world and be an objectivist.

[KendallJ 0]

Well, having stuck my nose into the "China" thread, I see there is enough controversy brewing that I should clarify my post.

I think there are enough 3rd world options out there that if you feel China is a direct military threat to the US, you can still find somewhere that isn't. Try Thailand, a relatively stable country. India's business sector which is booming in IT and pharmaceuticals is relatively entrepreneurial.

As to the merits of direct trade with China, I think I'll have to debate Stephen on the other thread.

[RayK 0]

I did not mean my question as a general question open to all times. I meant it to pertain to today and at the most within my own lifetime.

I have been running my own business for over 6 years now, and have a pretty good idea of what it takes to produce wealth. But, I think to become a billionaire for an Objectivist requires a rational or at least semi-rational society to sale products to and to work within. This is the key point that I find very hard to overlook and why it is such a slow process for me at this time.

I am awaiting to applaud an Objectivist who becomes a billionaire, although I am still not sure I will see it. I also would not mind and I am striving to be one myself!

[Stephen Speicher 0]

If I am a manufacturer (hypothetical), I will have to compete against corporations that have their manufacturing done in China or some other third world country that is ethically against America. As an Objectivist I am unwilling to strengthen my enemies by paying them to create my products, and also many other reasons.

I believe that this amounts to mind-body dichotomy, or "as long is there is no one out there of pure rationality, then I cannot do business."

The poster said that he is "unwilling to strengthen my enemies." How do you get from that to "as long is there is no one out there of pure rationality, then I cannot do business"? Speaking as moderator, I caution you about putting words into someone else's mouth, especially when using quote marks. I realize you said "this amounts to," but, nevertheless, it is better not to re-interpret what the poster says.

First of all, if you really want to keep yourself "pure" ...

Again, as moderator, please try not to characterize the person, but instead just deal directly with the ideas.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I am awaiting to applaud an Objectivist who becomes a billionaire, although I am still not sure I will see it.

What about Monroe Trout? Is he a billionaire, or did he just manage billions of dollars? I really don't know for sure.

I also would not mind and I am striving to be one myself!

Ray, when you reach that point, let me know. I have this experiment I would like to run ...

[Jay P 0]

Could an Objectivist make a billion dollars today?

Yes, I think so, because when I consider existing billionaires in the US today, I do not find that they did anything unethical to make their billions. (To show that an Objectivist couldn't become a billionaire today, one would have to show in the following examples, not only that these men did unethical things in the course of making their billions, but also that they couldn't have made their billions without doing these unethical things.)

Consider Bill Gates. As far as I know, in making his original billions, he didn't do anything unethical. He just produced and sold software that many people were willing to buy. It's true that, today, his company does things like trade with China, but that wasn't something he did (there was very little market there) in the course of getting rich. (And even today, I wonder if Microsoft and the other computer companies that do business in China really make any money or if it's wishful thinking - but that's a digression for another thread.) And I'm quite confident that, even if part of Microsoft's money was made by doing things like trading with China, one could strip that part away, and he'd still be a billionaire many times over. (It's also true today that Microsoft, along with too many other computer hardware and software companies, sometimes tries to get the government to initiate force against other companies. This is unethical, but it hasn't in fact done them any good in making their money anyway, so abstaining from it would not have been an impediment to their wealth.)

The same probably applies to Jeff Bezos of Amazon. He just sells books and stuff on the internet. I don't have any reason to believe he did anything unethical.

Ken Iverson made a lot of money in the steel industry (though he probably wasn't a billionaire) and I don't believe he did anything unethical. And I'm sure John Allison is doing very well financially - his company certainly is a success story - but I have no idea if he's a billionaire. But there's no reason he couldn't be some day.

.....

In fact, my assumption - in the US - would be that if I found out about a billionaire, I'd assume he did largely make his money ethically. Perhaps as others have said here a billionaire in Russia probably got that way through government favors; and as for Saudi Arabian billionaires, well, that whole region's oil wealth is stolen from Western companies to begin with. If it's impossible to make much money in these countries honestly, that wouldn't surprise me.

I just don't see America as being so far gone that one can't make a lot of money honestly, and I don't see how being a billionaire is reason to have one's ethical credentials questioned. And as far as Objectivism goes, having a good, true philosophy should be an advantage in a competitive marketplace, so Objectivism ought to be a help to making lots of money, not a hindrance.

[Joss Delage 0]

I think that to make billions in a largely rational & ethical society as the US, you need to be largely rational & ethical yourself (in addition of being super smart, hard working, etc). To become a billionaire in Russia, China, or Saudi Arabia is a completely different proposition. I don't think an Objectivist could become a billionaire in Russia or Saudi Arabia in the current situation.

(By the way, I don't think that the US is "semi"-rational. I think it is much more rational that not.)

[KendallJ 0]

I think that to make billions in a largely rational & ethical society as the US, you need to be largely rational & ethical yourself (in addition of being super smart, hard working, etc). To become a billionaire in Russia, China, or Saudi Arabia is a completely different proposition. I don't think an Objectivist could become a billionaire in Russia or Saudi Arabia in the current situation.

(By the way, I don't think that the US is "semi"-rational. I think it is much more rational that not.)

Is what you are asserting this?

a. to make billions in a rational and ethical society, you need to act rationally and ethically, therefore

b. to make billions in an irrational and unethical society, you need to act irrationally and unethically?

I am not sure that b follows from a. The case would be the businessman acting rationally in an irrational society. I am unconvinced that a Russian "oligarch" is a necessarily an irrational and unethical person.

[Rose Lake 0]

Is what you are asserting this?

a. to make billions in a rational and ethical society, you need to act rationally and ethically, therefore

b. to make billions in an irrational and unethical society, you need to act irrationally and unethically?

I am not sure that b follows from a. The case would be the businessman acting rationally in an irrational society. I am unconvinced that a Russian "oligarch" is a necessarily an irrational and unethical person.

????

Unless you change 'makes' to 'acquires,' there is no b. to follow from anything. Whoever (if anyone) actually makes billions in an irrational and unethical society [which strikes me as at least highly improbable] would, in any case, be unable to keep it. A big part of what makes a society irrational and unethical is that those (if any) who actually produce values are not allowed to be the primary beneficiaries of their own labor. Parasites are the primary beneficiaries.

And if someone does not make, but acquires billions in an irrational and unethical society, they've done nothing but acquire loot by force, which is simply an instance of irrationality, and does not in any way follow from the rational actions of those in more rational cultures.

[KendallJ 0]

Unless you change 'makes' to 'acquires,' there is no b. to follow from anything. Whoever (if anyone) actually makes billions in an irrational and unethical society [which strikes me as at least highly improbable] would, in any case, be unable to keep it. A big part of what makes a society irrational and unethical is that those (if any) who actually produce values are not allowed to be the primary beneficiaries of their own labor. Parasites are the primary beneficiaries.

And if someone does not make, but acquires billions in an irrational and unethical society, they've done nothing but acquire loot by force, which is simply an instance of irrationality, and does not in any way follow from the rational actions of those in more rational cultures.

But that's what I'm trying to clarify. "at least highly improbable" or "necessarily impossible"? Agree with all the rest.

[Rose Lake 0]

But that's what I'm trying to clarify. "at least highly improbable" or "necessarily impossible"? Agree with all the rest.

But in an irrational and unethical society, in what instance(s) would the difference between these two things matter? Because in any case, those who actually produce values have no right to their earnings.

[Joss Delage 0]

Is what you are asserting this?

a. to make billions in a rational and ethical society, you need to act rationally and ethically, therefore

b. to make billions in an irrational and unethical society, you need to act irrationally and unethically?

I am not sure that b follows from a.

No "therefore", but yes, I am claiming 'a' and 'b'.

'b' isn't caused by 'a' - they both are a consequence of the same phenomenon, i.e., that wealth ownership (not creation) depends on the legal (and therefore ethical) environment.

I am unconvinced that a Russian "oligarch" is a necessarily an irrational and unethical person.

He has to be. Empirically, all modern Russian oligarchs are people who used their political connections to acquire on the cheap assets expropriated during decades by the slave masters of Societ Russia. They're second-hand looters.

[Oakes 0]

I think there are enough 3rd world options out there that if you feel China is a direct military threat to the US, you can still find somewhere that isn't. Try Thailand, a relatively stable country. India's business sector which is booming in IT and pharmaceuticals is relatively entrepreneurial.

Thailand? Seriously? I wouldn't drop a cent in that sewer. India, on the other hand, is a wonderful opportunity for America to become closer to, but it may not have an adequate manufacturing industry (see this thread for more).

I would've preferred this thread be titled: "Can an Objectivist manufacturer become a billionaire?" Obviously, if you're making software, baseball bats, or cookies, you don't need to worry about setting up shop in China. The question of whether it's practical not to manufacture in China is interesting, though I really doubt you can answer that without knowledge of the industry itself.

That said, I would find it unthinkable if China were the only place on the planet in which an innovative thinker could produce goods cheaply. That's taking the China hype to a whole new level.

[KendallJ 0]

No "therefore", but yes, I am claiming 'a' and 'b'.

'b' isn't caused by 'a' - they both are a consequence of the same phenomenon, i.e., that wealth ownership (not creation) depends on the legal (and therefore ethical) environment.

He has to be. Empirically, all modern Russian oligarchs are people who used their political connections to acquire on the cheap assets expropriated during decades by the slave masters of Societ Russia. They're second-hand looters.

Well, you must know far more about the fair market value of ALL of the assets of Communist Russia than I do.

I'm curious. Since you are implying that the mechanism by which ALL oligarchs came by their assets is highly unethical. What do you think would be the proper way to privatize previously communist assets?

[RayK 0]

Again, I was not primarily asking what it takes to become a billionaire, as I know the prerequisites. I was asking are those prerequisites in place now in America for an Objectivist to become a billionaire.

So, to answer my own question. Yes, I think it can be done but it will be more demanding for me as an Objectivist. The main reason I think it will be more demanding is because I am unwilling to comprimise my own ethical standards to gain wealth today with no thought about future consequences. To act rationally selfish is not to discard today for tomorrow nor tomorrow for today. In business it is to think long-term about what I want to accomplish and them have my goals and values correspond uncompromisingly all the way back to today. This cannot be done by "making deals with the devil"/enemy.

[KendallJ 0]

Thailand? Seriously? I wouldn't drop a cent in that sewer.

Fundamentally you're saying there are other options that China. Great!

Thailand is interesting. My company has a JV in Thailand. I'd consider Thailand before most of the other countries in Southeast Asia, except for maybe Singapore. One of the more stable countries in the region. Has a long history of being so. What's your experience?

[Oakes 0]

Yes, I think it can be done but it will be more demanding for me as an Objectivist.

I'm not sure I agree. Moral standards can both harm you and help you in the short term (of course, unquestionably, they help you in the long term). For example, imagine how much better Microsoft or ALCOA could've fared had they hired a few Ayn Rand admirers to be their ethical advisors. And how about all the great press BB&T received after their big press release - I'm willing to bet it made up for any lost business with contractors.

[Oakes 0]

Thailand is interesting. My company has a JV in Thailand. I'd consider Thailand before most of the other countries in Southeast Asia, except for maybe Singapore. One of the more stable countries in the region. Has a long history of being so. What's your experience?

Um, my experience is that they are the child prostitution capital of the world. Or are we talking about two different Thailands?