Modesto, California has a motto that sits proudly on an arched sign as one enters the city from the teaming congestion of Highway 101 that rumbles with diesel trucks through the agriculture core of the state: “Water Wealth Contentment Health.” It is a throwback to The Golden State’s climate and the hope for a better life that led settlers to Modesto (Spanish for “modest”). The goal back then was to build and create, to achieve something where nothing previously existed. There are plenty of caveats we can lard on concerning the fates of indigenous peoples and consequences of the water management system that made it all possible, but the goal of bettering oneself and growing wealthy and content was a driving force across America—an obvious extension of “The Pursuit of Happiness” encoded in the US Constitution.
So it might seem strange that billionaire Leon Cooperman appears in The Washington Post confused about whether or not his success is some kind of moral failure. He came from modest roots, worked his way through college and graduate school, and then worked to make money on Wall Street. Now, with family grown, he still works at making money every day. He lives in an expensive home, but less than he could afford, drives a modest car, and shops deals at Costco. He also gives away prodigious amounts of money to educational and social charities, and he has pledged to give away most of it before death.
Plaudits on success and a long life. He is modesto, mostly, though some of his personal sentiment (at least as reported in the WaPo article) could be a bit more refined. Of a showy Bentley in his neighborhood: “…I could buy and sell that guy 100 times.” More, he likes the metaphor of lions for how capitalism works and hard work pays off, though anyone familiar with lions would understand that male lions slaughter non-familial cubs and are brutal in their territorial warfare. They are not as lazy as some have suggested, relying on females for hunting, but they make for a strange comparison to the lumpy family man sitting in front of a bank of telephones. Maybe his mane was more impressive in the 70s.
But what model should he use (or should he have used) in his life and economic choices? At the front of this process, I think he’s just fine and don’t deny him any of his achievements. I also applaud his efforts to help charities but, even if he didn’t do that, I don’t think he should be so consumed with the morality of his accumulated fortune.
So let’s consider that he could have chosen to pursue academics or a religious calling. He could have been a plumber like his father. He could have done many things but I assume valued making money using stock-market trading when he was looking at job options following his PhD. Stock market trading has a certain intellectual depth to it, from concepts of market equilibrium to Black-Scholes equations, from shorting strategies to hedging bets. There is securities analysis. There is macroeconomic policy and trends. There is private equity and venture capital. But, critically, the central feature of it is as a funding mechanism for businesses that create and fill human wants and needs. It appears to be an extremely successful (if not necessarily efficient) method for doing so considering the macroeconomic and social indicators that have risen consistently during our recent human history.
Note that I am not declaring that all the “yeah, but…” arguments of capitalism’s limitations and human and environmental exploitation are not true and warrant concern and action. What I am arguing is that Leon can make a full-throated appeal to the humanistic virtues of being part of a system that works to alleviate suffering and enhance flourishing. There is simply no other known approach that is demonstrably as effective. (I love to read socialist commentary on this but have never found it convincing.)
We can appeal here to both John Rawls and Robert Nozick for a bit of theoretical justification. Normalizing the differences in perspectives between the two, we can at least assert that where economic inequalities exist they are morally acceptable if they have positive social consequences (with the caveat of “to the least advantaged” for Rawls). The two disagree whether non-positive consequences can be morally justified. Putting aside concerns that are solely about freedom, with Rawls we can at least agree that the wealth of an individual should not be at the expense of another. Now Leon may have some ambiguity about his economic plays through the decades that granted him his outsized wealth. Did he trade in or fund, directly or indirectly, exploitative gambling or usurious lending to the poor? Did he knowingly contribute to the policies of fossil fuel companies to suppress a recognition of environmental harm? And even there, was that harm and those economic externalities not outweighed by the overall societal benefits of the system working as it has and did?
I’ve recently been on a more full-throated humanism tear, myself, and this is where I think Leon should be more vocal in the virtues of the systems he is a part of and sing less of his ability to buy his neighbors or his colloquial understanding of the animal kingdom. For me, I kindly write back to Jehovah’s Witnesses concerning their death cult when they send me hand-written appeals. And of the extreme left and right with radical claims concerning how to structure society, I always suggest that everyone relax more and observe and participate in the unrelenting progress that we are achieving in terms of worldwide living standards. I claim there is virtue in maintaining existing institutions but that experimenting with distributive justice methods for future-looking improvements is of course a great idea.
So, Leon, let your freak flag fly. Be healthy and modesto while building wealth and contentment. If you have ideas for water, California and the West would like to learn more. The existence of your billions does not directly lead to less for others. For many people, envy and frustration combine together into an emotionally-derived moral system. While emotion has always been a part of moral sentiments, it should be just a seed for further considerations. It can’t substitute for plans and a rational calculus.
If there was an additional recommendation, however, it would be to question the wholeness of Leon’s personal development. I mention this with only the content of the WaPo article as a basis, and in it Leon’s life has been singularly built around stock market trading activities (and charitable outreach in recent years). This can’t be the whole of it, though, and brings us to broader questions for the humanist playbook concerning whether financial systems are sufficiently creative to be a primary human focus. Some of the other billionaires mentioned have contributed materially and intellectually to the systems they are a part of. They have created significant new technologies that are more directly tied to growing worldwide GDPs (I nod again, yes, and signs of growing inequality). And other areas are worth noting, including the contributions of the arts with its strange monetization and value system (and massive inequality; note the mention of Damien Hirst’s conceptual sculpture). Yet the arts and the creativity that comes with them provide personal fulfillment and a numinous contribution to the same systemic endeavor. Leon might have been less defensive of his wealth if he had been more balanced by painting watercolors. Or running marathons. Or spelunking. Or astronomy.
Balance. It’s just a modest suggestion.
Edits and added tags