At first the idea of business and spirituality together may seem contradictory. We are often told that businesses are only driven by the incentive to make more money, while spirituality entails abandoning this attachment to external goods and material wealth. With this attitude hanging over our head, how can a spiritual person ever expect to become a successful businessman? Under what conditions can one sell and still be righteous?
To start, is there any place in this world that is outside of economic reality? Even the poorest of spiritual beggars must have some desire for clothing, food and shelter if he or she wants to survive. They need to “exchange” things for food, even if it is just a warm smile or a lesson in compassion.
On the other hand, some of these spiritually-driven individuals make a virtue out of living from the bare minimum, a notion that the late Indian mystic Osho disagreed with strongly. Osho taught that material poverty was not a genuine spiritual value. Often referring to himself as the “rich man’s guru.” According to one excerpt from Wikipedia:
- “Osho had himself photographed wearing sumptuous clothing and hand-made watches, and while in Oregon drove a different Rolls-Royce each day – his followers reportedly wanted to buy him 365 of them, one for each day of the year. Publicity shots of the Rolls-Royces (93 in the end) were sent to the press. As a conscious display, they may have reflected both his enjoyment of wealth and his desire to provoke American sensibilities, much as he had enjoyed offending Indian sensibilities earlier.”
Although a complex character who loved to provoke others, Osho made it clear that he never mistook material wealth for spiritual gain. Money to him was just a tool. He says,
-
“Money is a means. If you are happy and you have money, you will become more happy. If you are unhappy and you have money, you will become more unhappy – because what will you do with your money? Your money will enhance your pattern, whatsoever it is.”
Although he was rarely one to hide his wealth, money did not define Osho. In fact many of the royalties he received from his work were often donated to local communes, including the 90+ Rolls Royces.
In some ways Osho’s teachings can even be seen to resemble the moral philosophy of Ayn Rand, who once said, “The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.” Osho was definitely one to enjoy himself and live. He saw no virtue in prolonging any kind of suffering, starting with his own. His way of life quickly became a quintessence of how one can take responsibility for themselves and enjoy life without any signs of guilt or fear.
It is not money that is the root of all evil, but human greed itself that causes humans to do heinous acts for material and superficial gains. Money however can still be used as a tool for good, and even the acquisition of money, as long as the means are just, can often benefit society at large. The remainder of this article will touch upon business incentives that I feel also align themselves congruently with spiritual and moral imperatives.
The Incentive To Provide Goods For Others
First and foremost the purpose of a business is to provide goods for others. The owner may have the intentions of striking it rich, but if he neglects the needs and wants of society then he will have a tougher time selling his products. Sure, he or she may find ways to exploit the system and trick others into buying something they don’t really desire, but this can be incredibly difficult to do and even if the business does succeed, they won’t last long because their reputation will be quickly tarnished (this is assuming governments don’t come in and bail them out for their mismanagement).
Businesses are almost always better off if they try to provide something of value. Just look at individuals like Bill Gates from Microsoft and Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart. Both of these companies have drastically helped to increase the standard of living of others. Nowadays almost everyone has experienced the luxury of a computer, as well as the low prices provided by enterprises like Wal-Mart. Be honest, in what ways have these corporate conglomerates benefited you?
Businesses must know the demands of others if they want to continue to exist. Providing valuable goods to others at an affordable rate is a great way to benefit society at large. Often these endeavors can result in an alleviation of suffering, which is a primary objective to any spiritual practice. In the right hands, more money can mean a greater capacity to do good for others, especially when it is managed in productive ways. This is an aspect of business that should be celebrated more often.
The Incentive To Treat Customers Right
My economics teacher in high school once said that if someone has a bad experience with a company they are likely to tell the story to – on average – about 7 other people. I wasn’t able to confirm this statistic (if anyone can help me that would be great!) but I think she was touching on a crucial point: businesses must treat customers at some sort of satisfactory level if they want their customers to keep coming back. If a business gets enough of a bad reputation, people will stop going, and the company will no longer be favorable in the public eye. Especially in industries where there is a lot of competition, it is in the company’s best interest to win over their customers hearts and minds.
It doesn’t cost much to treat your customers with loyalty, care, and a bit of compassion – so if you are running a business it is in only in your own rational self-interest to make it assured that your customer’s needs are being met, and they they enjoy pleasant experiences with your company. This doesn’t just mean in the value of your product, but also in the value of your customer service and the overall human-to-human experience. This means their must be a certain culture to your company: What kind of friend are you to your clients? Are you being genuine, superficial, or are you acting as if you just don’t give a fuck at all? People aren’t dumb – they can usually tell the difference!
The Incentive To Treat Employees Right
Sure, many people believe that many modern economies have resulted in what is know as “wage slavery.” In this sense many say companies can get away with exploiting their workers, despite the fact that workers voluntarily choose where they work in a free society. Despite this, businesses have plenty of good incentives to treat their workers with the best possible care.
For example, building a sense of community or family around the workplace is a fantastic way to increase productivity. If people love where they work then they are much more motivated to do a great job. Of course, not all jobs are equally enjoyable, so it is up to the business owner to be creative when trying to build a more friendly atmosphere for his employees. One real world example is the offices at Google, one of the biggest companies in the world. Sure looks like fun to work there!
Choosing The Right Values
Achieving the above objectives requires a company to have good and productive values. Although this isn’t all that it takes to build a great business, it is important to have a sense of love, compassion, and family within the internal structure of your company. That is what keeps it together and makes up its core. You want your employees to be able to feed energy off of each other. This builds a self-perpetuating drive and motivation to do good for the company, which should try and be seen as a greater whole.
Understand that by doing good for the company you are also doing good for society at large. The key is to work for (or build) a company that you honestly believe is doing good for the world. The rest of your attitude will come naturally to you. You will want to improve the company because it simultaneously improves humanity too.
Last Thoughts On Business-Minded Spirituality
This framework for business is part of what I am beginning to call “Business-Minded Spirituality.” As an ardent proponent of capitalism and free markets, but also a deeply spiritual person, I strive to persuade you that businesses are not just evil and greedy money-making machines, but amazing tools that can be utilized to transform our world in a positive direction. For those that are already awakened spiritually, continue your learning by getting into the realm of business. For those that are more business-oriented, add a spiritual element to your company to help make it grow in new and expansive directions. I hope to be discussing these concepts more in the near future.
Some of you may have already adapted a business-minded and spiritual attitude. What type of things do you do to build a spiritual sense around your company? Which techniques do you find most effective for improving upon your business?
Farewell Video
Let me now leave you with a video of Osho himself, discussing the concept of “Selling Bliss:”
Join our weekly newsletter for updates!
The main question you need to ask whenever you hear about an outcome of “government spending” is: Instead of what?! The cost of any economic decision is never simply “What were the outcomes?” but also ‘What were the potential outcomes?” – what was the opportunity cost? What could have been achieved if I invested my time and capital differently?
Today President Obama announced that 1 million jobs were saved due to the $787 billion dollar stimulus plan he initiated earlier this year. I ask, “Instead of what?”
At first glance this may sound like a great headline for Obama, but only if you make an all-too-often economic fallacy about the nature of government spending. When we are on the receiving end, it is all too easy to forget that governments do not have their own source of wealth; they only absorb wealth from their citizens through taxes and monetary inflation. In this sense there is no such thing as government spending, only redistribution. As argued by many intellectuals throughout the past century, this kind of economic planning often comes with disastrous effects. Yet politicians refuse to listen, often only citing Keynesian economists – who justify increased government spending even when it is in contradiction with the most basic laws of the free market.
In this article I will argue that almost all government spending “for the sake of the economy” – no matter the intentions – is bad. I will argue that it doesn’t matter which way the money flows; it is the principle of the action that hurts the economy and undermines the intelligence of the market. And in the end we all lose out as a result of government meddling in the economy.
Government spending vs. Market spending
I find the best way to frame the battle between markets and governments is as follows,
When individuals are given the chance to keep their earnings (private property) and spend it as they see fit (voluntary contracts) – does this lead to better outcomes than when governments decide where money should be spent?
ARGUMENT 1: Fallacy Of Intentions (The Belief In A “Benevolent Government”)
One argument in favor of government is what I call the fallacy of intentions. This is the general belief that a benevolent government can provide for society better than self-interested individuals.
The underlying premise is that individuals are greedy and we can not expect greed to serve the general welfare of the people. As John Maynard Keynes once said, “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”
But this is a fallacy. Governments, like markets, are also a conglomeration of individual humans; humans that have the same potential for greed as anyone else. One of my favorite rebuttals to this fallacy is a quote by Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, in which he states:
“If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reasons also reject every kind of government action.”
A Keynesian might then counter this point by arguing that in a democracy – since the people elect their representatives – greed could therefore be limited.
But certainly “greedy individuals” are just as capable of organizing campaigns and becoming elected officials as “benevolent individuals”? America is already a great example of how money seems to be the best predictor of government power.
However we cannot blame this on capitalism, we can only blame government for not following its original constitutional foundation. This is why it is my belief that a constitutional republic, one which concentrates government power closest towards the individual, is one that best serves a free society. A constitution is necessary in order to define the purpose of government and to limit it from breaking these restrictions.
ARGUMENT 2: The Intelligence Of Governments Versus Markets.
Another argument in favor of government is that government can better allocate resources than the free market can. It is believed that under laissez-faire capitalism self-interested individuals will only act in a way that maximizes profit for themselves and consequently not provide for the needs of others.
However, economic activity is not a zero-sum game; everyone reaps benefits from voluntary trade. If individuals didn’t see benefit in an action they simply wouldn’t do it. As Adam Smith once famously wrote in his influential book “The Wealth of Nations” (1776):
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”
Adam Smith later named these market forces the invisible hand. Ludwig von Mises claimed that Smith believed that the invisible hand was that of God. He did not mean this as a criticism, since he held that secular reasoning leads to similar conclusions.
Mises’ contrasted the invisible hand of the market with central economic planning, claiming the the latter was not only undesirable but impossible. In his theory of the “economic calculation problem” which was later expounded by Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek, Mises argues that governments cannot possibly have the knowledge to know what is good for the economy. Mises believed that only the voluntary actions of consenting adults could properly allocate resources throughout the market. Hayek expanded on this idea by stating the efficient exchange and use of resources can be maintained only through the price mechanisms possible through free markets.
When governments legislate price and wage limits, the market is inhibited from reacting properly when changes occur in supply and demand. Due to the uncertainty of the economy, government can not possibly have enough knowledge to benefit society through massive spending. In fact, they almost always undermine a “natural market” solution from taking place. The more you give individuals a chance to act freely the better each individual’s needs will be met.
Of course the market isn’t perfect or Utopian. Individuals do not always make the right decisions for themselves and economies will fall into recessions during bad economic times. But this is true for any aspect of life. Just because half of American marriages end in a divorce doesn’t mean we want the government to make decisions on who we should marry. Life is filled with mistakes; it is how we learn, and it is a part of freedom.
So, yes, it sounds nice when we hear that Obama created X amount of jobs or saved Y. But how would this solution compare to a market solution? How do we know Obama is “creating” or “saving” jobs that really serve the American people? Yes, governments can help the unemployment rate by starting wars, or even by having everyone build pyramids, but is this really signs of a growing economy? Is this really an efficient allocation of resources? When Obama and Bush “bailout” companies that the market has already chosen to fail, then they are only delaying the inevitable destruction of these jobs. The people have already chosen another product. People losing jobs is a necessary function of a healthy market.
Note on GDP as a measure of economic growth
Like unemployment rates, GDP is another statistic that can be easily manipulated by government. The government reported this week that the economy grew 3.5 percent from July through September. But since government spending is a part of GDP, no wonder the “economy grew” with all this stimulus spending.
“What kind of man was Ludwig von Mises? As this unique film shows, Mises (1881-1973) was a man who never stopped fighting for freedom: not when the Nazis burned his books, not when the Left blackballed him at universities, not when it seemed as if statism had won. With courage and genius, he fought big government until the day he died … in 25 books, hundreds of articles, and more than 60 years of teaching.
Mises’s battles against Communists, Nazis, and other socialists, are featured in this film, as are his ideas of Liberty. There is also the old Vienna he loved, the Bolshevik prime minister he dissuaded from Communism, and a cast of villains from Lenin to Hitler, as well as such supporters and students as Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, Bettina Greaves, M. Stanton Evans, Mary Peterson, Joseph Sobran, and Yuri Maltsev.
Among his many accomplishments, Mises showed that socialism had to fail, that central banking causes recessions and depressions, that the gold standard is honest money, and that only laissez-faire capitalism is fully compatible with Western civilization.
Mises was the twentieth century’s foremost economist, and one of its most important champions of Liberty. Here is a film that does justice to this extraordinary man, and to his equally extraordinary ideas.”
“G. Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American film producer, author, and political lecturer. Starting as a child actor, he became a radio station manager before age 20. He then began a career of producing documentaries and books on often-debated topics like cancer, Noah’s ark, and the Federal Reserve, as well as on right-libertarian views of the U.S. Supreme Court, terrorism, subversion, and foreign policy. He has opposed the Federal Reserve since the 1960s, saying it constitutes a banking cartel and an instrument of war and totalitarianism.”
Milton Friedman discusses the American Medical Association. According to him, the AMA’s monopoly on the licensure of physicians in the United States has put a damper on competition within the industry, leading to lower quality services as well as limited availability to the American public. Although I don’t yet fully accept Friedman’s suggestion, I still find it an interesting proposition that is worth spreading, check it out: