Balance! If we want to live in a world that values life and resources this must be the call to action. Jim has opened a dialog that is critical for our nation and the world. Thanks for presenting his thoughts.

Getting the attention and focus of our nations, CEOs, c-class executives, senior managers, parents, educators, and leaders on any field of endeavor on the core issue of “values” is a very smart move—one that may even come to “save” us. And why, you may ask? What my gut-feel, observations, intuitions, and experiences tell me is that, in the face of “crisis”, most of us tend to lean towards two radically different options: either more control or more trust. More control means more power over people; more trust means more power with people. Both are valid decisions that we probably come to take every day at a street-level. Both deeply relate to our capacity to “communicate” and, at the end of the day, to build “community”. Now, you may not agree with me on that. That’s ok, I understand, we are still together. But if the above two options ring true, then we may want to promote the kind of values, characters, skills, and behaviors that support trust, as more and more are advocating today (see, for example, The Power of Trust, by S.M.R. Covey, son of Steven Covey). Values matter in a very real sense, because they point to what could be seen as Man’s greatest (and rarest) “miracle”: the power to live in harmony and community.

I think Wallis’ commentary challenges us all to look at the relationship between the private sector, government, and the public sphere and see if our priorities—reflected in calendars and budgets—reflect our community morals. I also hope that this crisis at least raises the question for others.

Jim Wallis raises the question of what would our actions today look like from the perspective of 7 generations? Valid though that may be, it may be a step too far for many people. It may be more effective simply to ask how well the decisions they make would withstand the scrutiny of their children today—and their children when they, too, have grown up.

Listening to Jim Wallis for me as an African is what we call in Shona(Zimbabwean dialect), Hunhu, or as espoused in Zulu Ubuntu, you are who you are because of other people. There should be a balance between me and the community for us the community is bigger than me. I am thrilled that this reflection which in some way is a fundamental in all great religions is taking center stage. We must not lose this opportunity to make this world a better place. Similarly this should be a focus area, particulalry for MBA programmes and indeed all tertiary courses.

I agree with Mr. Wallis, that a market without moral is not sustainable. What worries me in addition is, what happens when an additional three billion people overcome “poverty”? Wouldn’t this mean, that practically all of the worlds population is enabled for todays western consumer attitude? What would happen to the moral then? How would our world look economically, and more important, ecologically? I believe this will require a great personal change of attitude and strong world leaders or role models to foster it (be it political, corporate wise, or spiritually).

I agree generally with the direction but am skeptical on its application. The execution will be challenging. There needs to be more of a timeframe and given the uncertainty with many governments, it will be more an ideology that is nice to have rather than one that can be seen in the coming years. Governments work only on a need-to basis and unless leaders in all aspects of his “three legged stool” promote the same goal, obtaining convergance will be unlikely, I feel, in the next decade.

I am neither a religious man nor a left oriented thinker, but I have to say that anyone who does not agree with the general sentiment conveyed by Jim Wallis is simply a part of the problem with the global economy today. I have no issue with the accumulation of substantial wealth through personal innovation leading to the creation of valuable products and services, but massive wealth generated from the provision of personal services to owner or investor in a business is scandalous. No one person is worth the excessive salaries being paid to some executives today, regardless of their capacity to generate even greater revenues. In most cases these people stand on the shoulders of more innovative and harder working people who went before them to generate that revenue and their personal contribution is insignificant by comparison.

This isn’t difficult to understand. It is simply a choice we all must make every day. What do we aspire to stand for? What is our purpose? How do we define success? Serving and loving others and especially those in most need. Like I said it is a simple choice.

The generation of true value and a fair measure of value is what has been missing for the past 20 years. Too many people have been led to believe that there is a quick path to prosperity. The ethos of long days and hard work have been forgotten. Our government has not helped, as it has created disincentives for good old fashioned hard work. Why work two jobs at a lower wage when you can collect unemployment at a higher wage?

@Frank Frey. Government stifles charity? Please. That’s ideological gobbledygook, in my opinion. Government doesn’t stifle charity; selfishness stifles charity.

Jim Wallis belives Government is the solution. Government is not the solution, Government stifles charity.

In a week when the US Supreme Court raised the status of corporations and unions to that of the individual in terms of there being no legally-imposed limits on money spent in elections and bank heads—despite their roles in the 2008 credit meltdown—it is hard to view Wallis’ commentary, with all due respect, as little more than whistling in the wind.

There are no signs of values other than individualistic and materialistic gain in the near-term getting traction and framing and guiding business, and I fear exhortations to the business community are likely to fall on either deaf ears or on the desks of CEOs who will argue that concerns for greed apply to financial institutions, “not my business.” No, we are nearing times when the fear of large-scale political unrest fueled by inequities—times we have encountered in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that feed populist anger and resentment and threaten the status quo—will force a reframing of values in business. Sentiment alone will not move the moral debate.

I have another question that may be relevant: How deep does the “moral” and economic crisis have to get—that is, how much pain must be inflicted on whom—before humankind collectively expresses the will to abandon or correct the mechanisms that have led to the current state? Aside from Wallis’s invocation of religious context (the market’s being an expression of idolatry, which is arguable) I believe the growing expression of religious fundamentalism in the modern world is in fact a symptom of fear from growing awareness of the inequities between the Haves and the Have-Nots. The fact that rogue nations and fundamentalist theocracies now have access to effective WMDs adds to the fear-basis of the Haves, and will ultimately challenge every assumption and belief we hold dear (rightly or wrongly) about the true (I dare say “evolutional”) origins of mankind’s moral compasses.