In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, German economist Max Weber makes the case that capitalism arose as a result of Protestantism, and it's encouragement of work, trade, and building up savings for investments. Weber contrasts the Protestant ethic with the Catholic approach - one in which, as Weber describes, a worker does not work beyond their needs. Weber makes reference to Ben Franklin's book, Poor Richard's Almanac - a particularly interesting book in which Franklin lists out a set of proverbs one should live by - all of which are rooted in Protestantism, as well as capitalism:

Rather go to bed supperless, than run in debt for a Breakfast.

Industry need not wish.

Sin is not hurtful because it is forbidden but it is forbidden because it’s hurtful. Nor is a Duty beneficial because it is commanded, but it is commanded, because it’s beneficial.

My particular credo is: The sound of your hammer at five in the morning or nine at night heard by a creditor makes him easy six months longer, but if he sees you at a billard-table or hears your voice at a tavern, when you should be at work, he sends for his money the next day; demands it, before he can receive it, in a lump.

And for me this raises a particularly important question - is Greed necessarily a bad thing?

In Hogan's article, The Prostitution of Talent, an argument for the regulation of corporations is made. There's also a non-subtle suggestion - in the headline itself - that one who lends out their talents at cost is a form of prostitution. There is the mixture of ethical analysis, as well as corporate analysis, which comes to the conclusion that a corporation is a bad thing.

Hogan writes: The only worthwhile ethical advice “talent” can offer a corporation is to stop acting like a corporation and start getting in line with the public good. To give any other advice would be to prostitute that talent.

The first issue I'll take up is the notion of the prostitution of talent. The notion that the "advice" that I may lend a corporation is a prostitution of my own talent, is one I am at odds with. The idea here being that my ideas, and my abilities are going towards a corporation in which I am one small fish in a very large pond - that I am otherwise being exploited.

The problem here is that, to put it in the plainest words possible: I have bills to pay. I have worked to refine my talents so that I can sell them to the highest bidder, and I will seak out the highest bid for the largest personal gain possible. A corporation is likely able to offer a better price than smaller companies.

But that is, at best, a superificial argument. There is more at play here - specifically, my personal aspirations: To own land, and on it a house. To be able to provide for my children, and opening as many doors for them as possible (while teaching them the ethic to walk through the door on their own). To be able to travel, to be able to enjoy "the finer things in life." But to put it simply - to never have to pass on something, because I simply cannot afford it. And that, quite obviously, takes money.

Will the house be big? I'd like it to be big. Will the land be expensive? Ideally, yes. Could these desires qualify as greed? Some would say so.

The world of business is, very much, a game. A game, like all, has its winners, and has losers. This is specifically Tom Rath finds out in Sloan Wilson's The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit. It is a novel from the 1950s that I had started to read a week after completing University, and suddenly facing the cold fact that all that money that had been given to me on loan, was something I had to pay back.

In the book Tom Rath, a married man, with a house and children, and earning a salary of $8,000/year decides that the current state of his life has peaked. He is unsatisfied with his house, as is his wife, and he realizes that if he is to find himself in a neighborhood he prefers, in a house he actually likes, he will need to find a better job. The job is working for a large corporation. Throughout the course of the novel, Sloan Wilson shows the number of issues that come up - many of which are beyond our control. Not only that, but the dangers of losing everything, and entering a downward spiral of mounting debt is all to easy a thing. It was the perfect book for a poor, heavy in debt, and recently graduated student to read. And one which increased my debt by $11.95. The book, as well as the bills I had at the time, put fear into me. Fear which told me that my hammer had better be making a lot of sound from 5:00 in the morning, until 9:00 at night, if I ever wanted anything out of life. Fear which told me that in the past 4 years, I was living under a cloud of naivety, as money would magically appear in my bank account at the start of a new semester.

Sharing these feelings with a friend of mine - one who advocates a humble lifestyle, in a small house, and earning just enough to get by, we had an argument. My friend has, what I would call - admittedly insultingly - a burdensome view. One which puts a strain on the social systems put in place because he is not achieving the most and the best from his talent. What do I mean by that?

I asked my friend what he would say to his children when they wanted to play hockey, and he couldn't afford to buy them equipment. And he responded that he would sign them up in the community leagues that help out with the equipment. I asked him how he would pay for their tuition, or even help with thier college. He said they could get loans just like he did.

His mentality floored me. It was the polar opposite of what I imagine children from the 50s and 60s faced - in which, they would put themselves through much strain in order to provide more opportunities for their children. He, on the other hand, was perfectly comfortable putting strain on his yet-to-exist children.

But furthermore, this is someone with a university education. One who could easily earn a middle to upper middle class salary, if he chose to. Instead, he prefers to earn what would place him as a lower-middle class, if not lower, salary. A man who occupies a low-rent apartment. Were it not for him, this low-rent apartment could go to someone who couldn't afford anything more. Someone who does not have a university education, nor had the opportunities, or the chance to build a more comfortable life for themselves. Instead, it's one less place available.

I view this as greed. A man who has had so many doors open, and he chooses to close them all. To harbor his own talents for himself, and not help the community by making a better life for himself, and being a stimulus for the economy rather than someone who relies on tax-dollars doing their intended work. This is a greed of talent.

So I work for a corporation. But my personal aspirations don't just lead me to a corporation and it all ends. My personal aspirations leads me to long for the day I can start my own company and face the monster corporations as competitors. My personal aspirations make me long for the day that I can take my small company and make it a corporation myself.

I work at Microsoft. One of the biggest corporations in the world. And I can see what a big corporation can do for a community. Besides creating jobs for over 40,000 - and that's only at the main headquarters, I can see how Microsoft fuels the economy and the community in the surrounding area. The tax dollars paying for perks that other communities aren't privaleged to, providing a more affordable, and greener transit solution (with free wifi on board), providing parks, and libraries. Moreover creating a flourish of businesses, small to large, that are in direct correlation to Microsoft - by handling their products, or indirectly by supporting the community, such as grocery stores, restaurants, etc. These in turn create more jobs, and these in turn create a thriving economy. One which has jobs for people all across the spectrum - those with college degrees, and those without. Many of which pay a better salary and, in turn, provide more opportunities to people who wouldn't have otherwise have had them.

If I could make a company on my own, and make it as large as Microsoft, is that a bad thing? When you factor in the thousands and thousands of jobs I have created, the aid that I could bring to the surrounding communities, the millions that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as Microsoft itself has donated in the recent years - is this something that could be done as well under regulation, and not under a free market?

The danger of corporations is when the crumble. Take, for example, the Detroit automobile industry. Thousands are now suffering due to the failure of these corporations. Regulations on these companies would not have prevented the suffering. And in those regards, I can only hope that I'll be able to get my own personal aspiration ball rolling before I ever have to face any of those difficulties.

There are already strong laws in place which prevent monopolistic practices. Microsoft has had problems with these laws, and currently Google is in the news for similar difficulties. If coporations don't want to face these law suits, the honus is on them to regulate themselves. The government should put in place regulations which protects the citizens: by enforcing work place regulations, as well as labor laws, so that children don't end up slaving away over Olympic merchandise. In North America there are enough laws and regulations in place to account for these. To regulate beyond that is to regulate on one's freedom. Not only that, it would directly impact all those who are in, what I would call a symbiotic relationship with the corporations - the small, and the large.

Corporations have to be versatile enough to constantly meet the market's demand, and the government does not need to intervene. The root of economy is supply and demand, but the importance is demand. If the market is demanding a "greener" product, those which don't supply one face profit loss.

To say the government should regulate corporations to be more socially conscious makes just as much sense to me, as it would be to say that the government should regulate people to be more socially conscious, thereby creating a market where the demand is for products that do not affect society adversly.