Playing by the rules of the game

Henry Blodget, in an article in The Atlantic magazine, wrote that bubbles will always happen, and gave reasons why Wall Street “always blows it.” Part of the answer is that by the time a new bubble forms, the people who were on Wall Street last time are gone. What? These people can’t read history? Don’t military leaders have to learn military history? Actually, Wall Streeters are not much given to reading history, and no one insists that they do so.

Blodget also argues that the decisions made by all the players involved made sense in the short-term, quarter-to-quarter world of business. They were not irrational; people were just doing what they were supposed to do. So, maybe there is something wrong with a system that cares only about three months down the road. Regular people are sternly admonished not to live that way.

I spotted a reason Blodget didn’t mention. Business is treated as a game like football or chess. It is unconnected to any philosophy or larger vision outside itself. That is why “business ethics” has always been regarded as an oxymoron. There is no such thing as chess ethics or football ethics; there are just the rules of the game. There are officials to see that the rules of the game are obeyed, but the game is its own world. That is one reason people like it; you can leave the “outside world” behind with all of its ambiguities and tough moral problems.

Business tends to be played as a game. The guys, and they are mostly men who play on Wall Street, are every bit as much game players as those who play golf and poker. Unmoored from any considerations other than winning the game, it is hard to take into account environmental effects of economic activity or the standards of living of workers. They have no more to do with the game than they do with winning at Monopoly. The game has its on internal logic.

There are people who want capitalism to evolve into something that takes into account social and environmental justice. There are companies that do this, but they tend to be small and not owned by stockholders. International banking and financial institutions are not among them. Some people want better morals from our business leaders, but many have exemplary morals outside the game. They love their families, give to charity and are sterling friends. They simply understand that business is played by its own rules just like tennis, and they act accordingly.

Some people think our hope is in government regulation. Better regulation and honest referees are helpful, but there is something larger at fault than not enough rules or people in striped suits with whistles.

Everyone sitting in front of a screen playing a video game believes that this is a purely make-believe world. That is why they argue that violent video games are not harmful. They don’t believe their moral fiber is being damaged by playing at killing people. If you suggested that they play the game as if they were peacemakers or Quakers, they would think you had lost your mind.

Similarly people whose game is business tend to think that you play the game by the rules of the game, not by standards imported from it. In recent years finance has triumphed over industry, and making money got unhinged from making or developing quality products or providing jobs. Until that mindset changes, I don’t think big business will change much. And courses in business ethics will be taken about as seriously as courses in football ethics.

Patricia Hunt, of Staunton, is a chaplain at Mary Baldwin College.