Sallust

For whatever reason, I thought of the Roman Sallust this afternoon.  He was a governor and essayist, if not a historian.  His words ring true today, if only to cast light on the concept of "greed." 

"Greed" is being used to tear us apart, to divide us into something other than "E Pluribus Unum."  Yet, as I've noted before, "greed" is in the eye of the beholder.  Historically, the entrepreneurs of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, such as Rockefeller and Carnegie, have been treated badly.  Even the US national standards (of the early '90s; since, the standards may or may not have changed) referred to them as "robber barons" and included a suggested lesson plan that put them on trial for, I guess, being too rich.  Of course, such a suggestion is loaded, more than implying there was something wrong with these guys (and others like them).  That is, they were "greedy."

Most certainly, they were rich, filthy rich if I can use a term that might also be perceived as derogatory.  I believe they, in purchasing power, might be the two wealthiest men in the history of the world.  Yet, do these folks who labeled them "robber barons" ever consider the number of jobs these entrepreneurs created?  OK, maybe some of the jobs weren't real nice--but are the alternatives, lack of growth, unemployment, etc. better?  Although most Americans were earning less per hour in 1900 than they were a couple of decades before, they had a higher standard of living.  In large part that was due to the innovations, the increased productivity demanded by Rockefeller, Carnegie, and others like them.  Yes, they were rich and I have a hard time figuring out how much is enough.  (Rockefeller purportedly once said, "Just a little more, just a little more.")  And consider the charitable foundations and legacies they left behind.

Let me ask, once again, who wouldn't trade places with them?  Well, who wouldn't want their money (wealth)?  (I won't consider who would want their wealth without working like they did.)  C'mon, who among the Occupy Wall Street protesters wouldn't take the money of those they protested?  All of them would?  Our own Democratic Senators, throughout the US, talk about making the rich pay "their fair share," yet they travel all over the world, have vacation homes in the nicest places, etc.

And, our anger toward the "wealthy" seems to be very selective.  Where are the protesters outside the professional stadiums and arenas?  Isn't some guy who makes millions of dollars by playing a game also "greedy?"  What about those Hollywood-types and the Hippy-Rock Stars?  Where are the boycotts of their movies, television shows, concerts, CDs/albums?  Right...they don't exist.  That CEOs might actually create jobs for others, while some of the other "rich guys" don't is never (or seldom) considered.  (Of course, some CEOs and managers deserve our scorn, but that's for another time.)

Anyway, back to Sallust.  He knew of what he wrote/talked.  He was a scoundrel himself, using his political position to loot and plunder and then his acquired wealth to bribe his way out of a conviction.  I have forgotten the exact words of Sallust, but they went something like this:  "[Greed] is boundless and can never be satisfied.  He who has not wants.  He who has wants more."  Certainly, those words are food for thought.