Daylight Atheism > Not for the Love of Money

< Previous: New Book Reviews on Dangerous Intersection and Ebon Musings

Next: Some Words on Exploiting Tragedy >

Not for the Love of Money

This month I've written two posts condemning the get-rich-quick, get-everything-for-nothing mentality prominent both in evangelical Christianity (The Root of All Evil) and in New Ageism (The Secret). (It occurs to me that this is April - tax month, for us Americans - and though I didn't intend these posts to appear during this month, the correlation pleases me.) This brand of supernatural selfishness has never brought humanity any benefits, instead only giving grief and distracting us from truly important paths to achievement. But I don't think the desire to be rich is always a bad thing. Consider this post from the New York Times Dealbook blog, from last December, titled Craigslist Meets the Capitalists:

Jim Buckmaster, the chief executive of Craigslist, caused lots of head-scratching Thursday as he tried to explain to a bunch of Wall Street types why his company is not interested in "monetizing" his ridiculously popular Web operation. Appearing at the UBS global media conference in New York, Mr. Buckmaster took questions from the bemused audience, which apparently could not get its collective mind around the notion that Craigslist exists to help Web users find jobs, cars, apartments and dates — and not so much to make money.

Wendy Davis of MediaPost describes the presentation as a "a culture clash of near-epic proportions." She recounts how UBS analyst Ben Schachter wanted to know how Craigslist plans to maximize revenue. It doesn't, Mr. Buckmaster replied (perhaps wondering how Mr. Schachter could possibly not already know this). "That definitely is not part of the equation," he said, according to MediaPost. "It's not part of the goal."

...Larry Dignan, writing on Between the Lines blog at ZDNet, called Mr. Buckmaster "delightfully communist," and described the audience as "confused capitalists wondering how a company can exist without the urge to maximize profits."

I have to admit that I, too, find something faintly hilarious in the image of an audience of baffled analysts and investors, unable to comprehend the idea that the owner of a massively popular service like Craigslist would not want to extract as much revenue from his company as he possibly can. But strange as it sounds, I think this decision is worthy of criticism.

Some of the commenters on Dealbook have praised Craigslist owners Jim Buckmaster and Craig Newmark for not selling out, calling their business model "benevolence baked in" or "business for the greatest good". However, several other commenters raised a point which I would like to echo: wouldn't the most benevolent thing to do here be to indeed monetize the site, and then use the profits to fund some worthy charitable efforts?

There are billions of people in the world who lack access to clean drinking water, who suffer from treatable disease, who scrape by in desperately poor living conditions. Wouldn't a greater good be served by leveraging Craigslist's vast popularity to transfer some wealth from relatively prosperous people of the First World to those who have far greater need of it? (How much would a million, or even a thousand, dollars mean to Dr. Alain Mouanga?) Indeed, who has done more good for the world: Buckmaster and Newmark, who seem content in the knowledge that they have everything they need, or Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, who have pledged billions of dollars to relieving human suffering? And even beyond human needs, there are the many species in critical danger of being driven to extinction, the hot spots of biological diversity being irreversibly destroyed by human activity, the climate change that threatens to disrupt vital ecosystems all over the planet. A measly few billion dollars spent to defend our world's environment from these threats could pay dividends for thousands of years to come.

The larger point is that neither money, nor even the desire to make money, are intrinsically evil. In itself, money is nothing but a measure of ability: the ability to work one's will, the power to affect and change the world as one desires. A person can have a strong desire to become wealthy so that they can advance the cause of human happiness in general, or they can become rich and then think of nothing but their own comfort. The latter is wrong, the former is not. In either case, it is how one uses one's money, not how much money one has, that is the determining factor in whether its acquisition is for the good.

21 Comments

They could decide to make billions & give it to the Scientologists or the ID-ers. But why should they have to make money for ANYBODY?

Comment by: Al | April 19, 2007, 7:55 am

I'm sure most users of Craigslist would have no problem with that. Capitalism is really good at deciding what's efficient and productive, because it asks people to vote with their dollars (life's blood). But the larger a company is, the harder time it has injecting morality into the operation. I don't doubt for a minute the good intentions of google, but look what happened to them in China.

it is how one uses one's money, not how much money one has, that is the determining factor in whether its acquisition is for the good.

I'm not sure that I agree. Certainly a person gets bonus points (reputation) for doing good with their money. But should we think ill of them because they use it for themselves? What is the point of private property at all then?

I think philanthropy is only meaningful if we see it as a gift, not a requirement.

Comment by: BlackSun | April 19, 2007, 9:07 am

I suspect it may be easier to be benevolent by laziness (to one's customers) than to be benevolent in a way that requires a lot of work (spending all that time trying to maximise profits, and then figuring out which worthy causes to give it to).

Perhaps they just find it more fun to get the business to work well for their customers than they would if they were worrying about profits all the time. It's not maximally unselfish, but I can well believe that it leads to the most happiness for Jim Buckmaster and Craig Newmark, with the benefit to customers being a nice bonus that fits in with the joy of creating a good service.

One might just as well argue that we should all earn as much money as possible so as to give it all to charity - very utilitarian, to be sure, but characteristically demanding as a result. I confess that I myself would usually take a job I found fulfilling over one that pays more money, despite the possibility of giving the money I earned to charity. Perhaps, for the owners of Craigslist, running a business for the benefit of customers is the job they find fulfilling; running a business for maximal profit is not.

Comment by: Lynet | April 19, 2007, 9:08 am

I agree with the commenters above. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the "larger point" you're making, I just don't think that "neither money, nor even the desire to make money, are intrinsically evil" automatically means that the lack of desire to make money is intrinsically evil. I have definitely not pursued a course in life that has maximized profits. The most I can afford to give to charity is some change now and again, but I chafe at the thought that I am automatically less moral than Bill Gates for it.

Maximizing your contribution to the human race is laudable, but extremely difficult to measure. Craigslist may be wary of the decisions they would have to make in order to maximize profits (such as bending to Chinese censorship, as mentioned above, or even just the censorship of their customers and sponsors, so as not to offend those valuable purse-holders and chase them elsewhere).

Besides these criticisms, I also think it's very unfair to assume "Buckmaster and Newmark, who seem content in the knowledge that they have everything they need." We don't know what their motives are, nor how comfortable they keep themselves, nor whether or not they, say, contribute their time to a homeless shelter rather than to making more money.

Let's not fall into the self-righteous trap that is so endemic to so many religions.

Comment by: rob | April 19, 2007, 10:48 am

Not sure what the situation is in the US, but here in the UK, share-issuing companies are legally required to maximise dividends for their shareholders. If they do anything to jeopardise those dividends, the shareholders can sue the company's management and oust them in favour of managers/directors who will deliver the goods.
Giving away excess profits to good causes would interfere with the generation of money for the shareholders, so my guess is it's a can of worms best not opened by anyone who puts ethics before profits. Dunno if that's Craigslist's motiivation, but it would fit.

I seem to recall Anita Roddick expressing regret about floating the Body Shop as a PLC, as the shareholders continually demanded increased profits at the expense of many of the altruistic things she wanted to do (sorry, the link escapes me for the moment, but I recall it was in an interview in the Observer when the Body Shop sold out to L'Oreal - by which time Roddick and her husband only owned 18% of the company).

Comment by: Peter | April 19, 2007, 11:45 am

I'm not sure I agree that Craigslist making more money and giving it away would necessarily contribute to the greater good. Isn't it possible that providing the American public with a low cost way to find jobs (etc.) as well as providing the corporate world with an example of a company that does not make all decisions based on generating ever more profits? I think attempting to level the economic playing field in a free market is also noble.

Comment by: ex machina | April 19, 2007, 12:01 pm

I'm going to disagree, as well. What we don't know is the extent to which Craigslist would have to subvert their social contract in order to "maximize profits". The gift economy they're creating is a form of philanthropy in itself.

Comment by: schemanista | April 19, 2007, 12:28 pm

I think a lot of times things that are done in the name of "maximizing profits" often create the need for charity. When companies externalize environmental and social costs, someone has to pick up the tab.

Comment by: Vicki Baker | April 19, 2007, 1:03 pm

Keeping Craigslist free is the most charitable thing they can possibly do. Yes, there are people in the world who need help, and there are people who can and do help them.

But here in America, the "maximize profits" mentality, no matter where the money goes, has made life much more difficult for most of us. We're in debt. We feel like slaves to men in suits who hide behind corporate logos. We have less and less control over how we run our own lives, and we resent giving the old men in suits money every time we have to.

Craigslist is "people helping people." It's a way for us to deal directly with each other to help each other out. You need $20? I need a sofa. There you go. Both problems solved. There's no reason to involve the old men in the suits in that.

(Full disclosure: I met my wife via a Craigslist personal ad a couple years back, so my opinion may be a bit biased.)

Comment by: markbt73 | April 19, 2007, 5:51 pm

BTW, there is a Craigslist Foundation with the stated mission of "Providing knowledge, resources and visibility to the next generation of nonprofit leaders."

Comment by: Vicki Baker | April 19, 2007, 6:28 pm

Hello all,

I'm not advocating that everyone should seek to become rich so they can give the money away to the poor. I'm saying something different: that the people who are rich, or who could easily become so, have a moral obligation - yes, I said obligation - to use those resources to help others, rather than thinking only of their own comfort. The Bible says, "Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required." A more believable story said it a little differently: "With great power comes great responsibility." I agree with that moral and stand by it.

A relentless focus on making money tends to tarnish the spirit. Much too often, what starts out as a means to an end becomes an end in itself. But that's an instrumental problem, not an intrinsic one. My point is that every person should do what is within their ability to help others. If you have only a little, then do a little. If you have a lot, then you should do a lot. If circumstance makes you wealthy, as is the case with Craigslist's owners, then accept that privilege and use it to achieve something good. Helping wealthy Americans trade furniture, or even find spouses, is well and good. There's nothing at all wrong with providing those services. Now, what about people who don't have access to clean water?

Comment by: Ebonmuse | April 19, 2007, 6:32 pm

If circumstance makes you wealthy, as is the case with Craigslist's owners, then accept that privilege and use it to achieve something good. Helping wealthy Americans trade furniture, or even find spouses, is well and good. What about people who don't have access to clean water?

That's not a bad ethic, but, again, you're talking about how a person conducts their own life and finances, which is not the same as running a business. "Maximizing profits" is a pretty loaded concept in the modern world, as Peter points out above. Choosing not to maximize profits and pursue other goals with your time and money is not a crime, and does not make you responsible for all the evil in the world you failed to stop, anymore than Spider-Man is responsible for the criminal acts he failed to prevent.

Comment by: rob | April 19, 2007, 7:05 pm

Quite frankly, if more people ran there businesses like Craiglist, we wouldn't NEED as many charities as we have now.

The idea that you create a business to serve a need (or want) instead of making money is an arachic one that I would like to revive.

Comment by: Antigone | April 19, 2007, 7:28 pm

I think the notion that a business should have some goal (under a thick layer of advertising whitewash) other than putting as much money in the hands of the people in charge of it by whatever legal (see "lip service") means necessary is revolutionary enough in modern American culture that this is to be encouraged, even if it's not maximally socially beneficial in an absolute sense.

Comment by: Alex Weaver | April 19, 2007, 7:50 pm

I agree with all of the previous commenters. Craiglist is providing services to a vast number of people much cheaper than might otherwise be found. Massive corporations, in order to maximize profit, ultimately reduce the quality what the customer receives. Any company that manages to maintain an enormous income and still maintain a high quality of service is certainly doing a great thing (for example, Google has maintained quality but continues to grow).

Not all businesses should be expected to do so, however.

Comment by: Andrew A. | April 19, 2007, 8:16 pm

It's also possible that the owners of Craigslist are worried about the temptation of making a large income even if they intended to do something socially responsible with the money. If they were in fact worried that they would not be able to resist becoming corrupted by it or by the mentality of always trying to increase profits, surely it's better that they steer clear of it?

Comment by: Alex Weaver | April 19, 2007, 8:32 pm

"If circumstance makes you wealthy, as is the case with Craigslist's owners, then accept that privilege and use it to achieve something good."

The Craigslist Foundation is already using the craigslist money to achieve something good: training, capacity-building, and networking for emerging non-profits. If for example you wanted to start a non-profit to distribute personal water filters, or appropriate-technology water treatment systems in the Congo or elsewhere, you could get training from the Craigslist foundation or find out who else is doing similar projects in order to leverage your efforts. Sometimes smaller grassroots groups can do more to effect social change with less money than the larger established charities like the Red Cross. Here is the link to the Craigslist Foundation website.
I'm not sure what "maximizing profits" means for craigslist.org, but if it means encouraging Americans to buy more stuff we don't need from resources we can't afford to waste, manufactured in sweatshops far away, I think they should stick with the business model they have now.

Comment by: Vicki Baker | April 20, 2007, 12:21 pm

"The lack of money is the root of all evil."--Mark Twain (1835-1910)

Comment by: John Nernoff III M.D. | April 21, 2007, 11:12 am

One thing I can tell you about Craigslist is that at least here on Long Island where I live it is a forum for promoting prostitution. Almost every other week I read in the paper about the police arresting prostitutes or johns who hooked up through Craigslist, because the police monitor the ads.

Comment by: Tommykey | April 24, 2007, 9:29 pm

Hey, someone made a reference to the law requiring publicly traded companies to maximize profist for shareholders. Craigslist wouldnt be able to operate under their current business model, legally, because of this.

Fortunately, however, craigslist is not publicly traded. So they can do that.

Regarding the prostitution comments- its fucking crazy that it goes on. I wish the police would stop it.

Comment by: Steven Navarro | December 6, 2007, 10:24 am

Steven, you should read the recent post On the Morality of: Prostitution to see opinions on prostitution from an atheist perspective. I'm sure your thoughtful contributions to that debate will be welcomed; a simple gut reaction, without analysis, not so much.

Comment by: Joffan | December 6, 2007, 11:34 am