I have been pondering what it means to be a “successful” business person (or a successful person in general).  At first I thought it might mean running a “profitable” business.  That seems to make some sort of sense, after all what could be more successful than making money?  However, that is a rather nebulous criteria because it doesn’t include the idea of how profitable a business needs to be to be successful, nor does it include anything about how the “costs” of that profitability.  Our current social-economic model assumes that profit only includes the costs to the business; it doesn’t include the costs that are “paid” by others (such as society, the environment, or our future).  Just following “profit” as the criteria for success doesn’t seem to have a stopping point, or provide criteria for how much is enough.  Picking a target such as a “50%” profit as the criteria seems reasonable, but that approach results in some odd outcomes.  If I start with $1,000 and accumulate a 50% profit every year, in 40 years I would have over seven billion dollars.  Perhaps that would be a sign of being “successful” – but is this an appropriate goal?  I think we all know there is more to being successful than just making a profit.

I generally reject the idea that rich people got that way by being “greedy” – that is much too simple, and isn’t the way that most people’ mind works. People that make more money than others are not necessarily being greedy, they got that was as the results of making smart decisions, hard work, and luck.  I believe that most people (even very rich ones) are attempting to be “good” people, at least in the eyes of those that are personally close to them.  Not all of them are “good” of course, there are indeed psychotic and anti-social people that get into places of power – but even then it is seldom greed that is driving them, it is a desire for power – or perhaps fear.  If “success” means making money, and making money isn’t all about greed – I wonder what the relationship might be.  Perhaps that connection just results from there being a lack of an alternative criterion.    

I think billionaires are much like the rest of us.  They want to be successful.  They justify their wealth by convincing themselves that they are doing great things for humanity.  They have convinced themselves that by hiring tens of thousands of people they are providing much needed livelihoods and jobs – which is true.  However, in many cases they are actually providing poverty because of the low wages they offer.  They also spend a lot of money on silly, and stupid, things – but a point can be made that even buying expensive, frivolous things (yachts, mansions, private jets or flights into space) provide even more jobs, many of which are quite high paying. Oddly, these kinds of extravaganzas often turn into good investments and therefore don’t “cost” anything.  They are just different investment opportunities.  Many wealthy people turn to philanthropy in an attempt at “balancing” the obvious unbalance in their wealth – but because of the tax regulations even that effort often becomes yet another type of investment generating even more “profit.”

Success based on accumulating money seems rather hollow and not very “fulfilling” with regard to personal needs. I am wondering if perhaps a better vision for “success” is something along the lines of being “honorable”.    Realizing that there are many meanings for the term “honorable”, I Googled it and found this description: “The word honorable has to do with people and actions that are honest, fair, and worthy of respect. An honorable person is someone who believes in truth and doing the right thing — and tries to live up to those high principles.” This seems close to what I am thinking about.  What if this is how we judge “success”? What if a successful person is someone that achieves a life based upon these principles, instead of success based upon gaining wealth and power?  Would that make a difference?

While a definition of “a success person” as someone who does “the right thing” seems better than being someone that makes a lot of money, I am not sure how to use it as a useful criterion.   I wonder if there is a way for an individual to take actions that “help the world,” or does it take a community of everyone to accomplish that.  For example, when selecting something to eat for dinner, can I actually make meaningful decisions about helping the world – or do I have to depend upon others to do the right thing to support my decision?  If I buy some shrimp for dinner, does that somehow make me complicit with supporting the Thai fisherman that “captures” destitute Burmese to work in insanely cruel conditions for little, or no, pay?  If I purchase a shiny new all electric automobile, do I somehow also become responsibly for the environmental destruction caused by mining the metals for those batteries?  I think not, it is all too big, too far from my control, and too deeply embedded into the system of exploitation supporting our entire economic system. 

The most an individual can do it hope that the store selling the shrimp does their best at being “honorable” in their choices.  The best that they can do it hope that their suppliers are being “honorable”, and so on down the line until you come to shrimp farms and the fisherman in Thailand, or Vietnam, or India or Indonesia – we are all hoping that they are also being “honorable” – unfortunately, it appears that the attribute of being “honorable” isn’t necessarily prevalent everywhere along the chain.  What drives every step is someone trying to be “successful” in the sense of making a living, making a profit, expanding the business – being “successful”.  For anyone to do the “honorable” thing, everyone involved has to do it too.

Are these two possible meanings of success mutually exclusive?  Is there a way to be successful as a business person while being careful to treat people fairly?  Is it possible to make use of the natural resources in a way that is sustainable and healthy for the environment and all of the critters sharing it with us?  Is it possible to use resources in a way that does not plunder and “steal” them from others that need to share the resources of the “commons”?

If this is not possible, then we have a bit of a problem – there may be no solution to our current over-exploitation in support of our current striving for over-abundance.  What if the price of shrimp reflected the true cost of obtaining them?  What if the fishermen actually got paid enough to support themselves and their families?  What if the fishing is only done in ways that aren’t destructive to the oceans? What if the people that profit from the price “mark-up” at each stage do so only in relation to what they need, not just what they can get?  What would happen to the price of shrimp in that situation?  Would shrimp once again become very expensive, and therefore rare?  Is that a bad thing?  Just because someone finds a way to build, or expand, a lucrative market opportunity doesn’t mean that they should. Do we really need five times as many shrimp now as we did forty years ago, even if  they did find a way to supply them at 1/10 the price and still make massive profits?  Who is paying for those profits?  It seems like we all are, but in ways that we can feel or even know about. 

I think perhaps our only choice is to find a way to change what it means to be successful.  The meaning of “success” is just an opinion that we have, it has no “reality” – it is merely a dream that is shared by humanity, one that could be changed.  A shift in point of view, a shift in opinion, perhaps a shift in what it means to be “honorable” is all that is necessary.  Greta Thunberg pointed directly to this issue when she told the members of the UN that they should be ashamed of themselves.  To be ashamed of yourself means that you are doing things that you know are wrong, and that are not “honorable”.  She obviously has a strong opinion about what it means to “do the right thing.”