“Behind every great fortune there is a great crime.” ~ Attributed to Honoré de Balzac
Agree or disagree?
Disagree. Just start naming some of the biggest companies in the world and the lack of (even imagined) crimes is apparent. Three off the top of my head are Microsoft, Google, and Nintendo. All massive companies with rich executives and not a single real crime among them. (sorry, I don’t buy into the MS anti-trust stuff).
Then there are the pro athletes of the world. Aside from a few rare cases, what crimes have they committed?
It’s absurd in this day and age. Although I’m sure the anti-capitalist crowd will be in here soon enough to disagree.
Balzac grew up in a time just before the French Revolution. I’m sure in his day, most great fortunes belonged to the hereditary aristocracy. They mostly gained their fortunes by taking them from some other aristocrat or off the labor of the people they ruled.
A lot of Yankees fans think A-Rod’s career is a crime against humanity!
But even in cases where athletes have committed crimes (OJ, Vick, etc), their fortune wasn’t produced by those crimes. In many cases, those crimes caused them to lose or nearly lose their fortunes.
Even if you do think MS broke anti-trust laws. These are not what I would consider “great crimes” (like say, making computers for the Nazis). These are violations of arbitrary business rules at the time.
Too simplistic. It was probably true when Balzac said it, since those making the money back then tended to be robber barons.
I would be much more inclined to go with “Fortune Favors the Bold”
This gets at the heart of the ambiguity in The Social Network: did Zuckerberg rip-off the Winklevoss twins, or did he take some of their thinking and combine it with other thinking and his own business sense to build something that those guys would never have conceived up. Was it a crime, or was he bold?
I do buy into the MS anti-trust stuff and I still don’t agree. Some fortunes arose out of dubious behaviors (the Kennedys and Bushes come to mind). Some have been honestly earned (say, J.K. Rowling). Some have a bit of grey in them (Bill Gates for the aforementioned reason). There’s all kinds of people and all kinds of fortunes about.
The statement is an absolute; the truth is not.
I agree. It is definitely attributed to him.
Disagree.
There are definitely great crimes behind SOME great fortunes. But not all.
Yeah, it’s the ‘every’ that earns the disagree.
The Winklevoss twins had no idea beyond “We should make a dating site just for Harvard students!” They had neither the technical know-how nor the business acumen to pull it off before Zuckerberg “stole” their idea. Tough titties for them.
After they IPO, the founder of Groupon will be worth a fortune. I’m struggling to figure out his great crime.
“$20 for $45 worth of massage therapy? What a steal!”
I suspect that crime would be selling a worthless bill of goods on a bunch of hapless investors.
I’ll throw out an example, JK Rowling. Whatever you think of the quality of the Harry Potter books/movies/franchise, nobody was harmed in the making of that empire. She just happened to create an entertainment product that was wildly popular.
I don’t see how one can amass a great fortune without, in some way, partaking of that form of theft known as property - even J.K. Rowling’s fortune rests on the decidedly capitalist foundations of publishing houses Bloomsbury and Scholastic.
Heh heh. “Honor the ballsack.” Heh heh heh.
I put down “other”, but yes that’s why. Very often yes there’s some sort of “crime”* involved, probably most of the time; but not every time.
- It may be “just” a moral and not a legal crime however, since the rich write the laws for their benefit.
Very few people consider property to be theft. Including most of the people who push that theory; they don’t want to lose theirs after all. And the concept of theft in itself presupposes property. You can’t steal something that is unowned.
I don’t see how one can amass a minuscule pittance without that form of theft known as property.
“Property” in the Proudhon quote is not the same as “possessions” - Proudhon had a very specific and non-trivial idea of property in mind. There’s nothing wrong with owning things - anarchism and socialism makes a distinction between “private property” and “personal property”, with the principle of usufruct to distinguish between the two. .
But it is all owned - by the commons. That is who the property owner steals from when he fences off more than he’s actively using himself - he steals from all of us.