On Mother Theresa and Michael Milken
One of the most compelling arguments advanced by John Stossel has been his comparison of Michael Milken to Mother Theresa. Mother Theresa fed the poor and cared for the sick. Michael Milken created a great deal of wealth, lifting people out of poverty in the process. Objectively speaking Michael Milken seems to have done more good than Mother Theresa. Some people would even argue that this makes Michael Milken morally superior to Mother Theresa. (Don't believe me? Click here.)
If you know John Stossel, you know that he makes his living by demolishing ideas that are based in emotion rather than fact. This is why he is idealized by objectivists, who put little stock in subjectivity. But most people would like to think that Mother Theresa is also objectively the answer to world hunger. There is a certain satisfaction in attacking greedy businessmen like Bernie Madoff and praising selfless Mother Theresa.
Objectively speaking, though, John Stossel is probably right. Michael Milken probably has done much more to end world hunger than Mother Theresa. That said, I bet that she would dispute the very premise of the comparison. Mother Theresa's goal wasn't to feed people food. It was to feed them God. By loving people on the streets of Calcutta, she was able to communicate the awesome love of God in a way that shipments of corn and vaccines never will.
Benedict XVI blames the condition of the modern 3rd world on Godless and largely loveless foreign aid. This is profound wisdom. Simple technocratic welfare harms its beneficiaries by breeding dependence. While Mother Theresa's methods may seem less efficient than traditional foreign aid, but she built up people and communities in a way that is impossible without God.
More specific to John Stossel's objection, however, we should keep in mind that markets rely on the kind of mutual respect and cooperation that Mother Theresa was breeding. Michael Milken was able to amass the fortune that he did because he was able to count on the basic honesty of those around him. In societies where corruption runs rampant, people turn inward and regress toward tribalism. The antidote to this is threefold -- faith, hope and love. These things must come before prosperity and for their own sake, or they will not come at all. Mother Theresa may have never become rich, but we should not sell short the ways in which she enriched the world, both materially and spiritually.
I think you missed what Stossel was doing here. The concept he was presenting was a modern form of something from Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own neccessities but of their advantages."
Mllkin and Mother Teresa where used as modern caricatures to illustrate the point that Smith recognised, and indeed laboured over, that the consequences the self driven "evil" capitalist's actions create more positive material benefits for people than those who seek directly to help them.
Neither Smith nor Stossel were making any point concerning spirituality, but simply looking at the material benefits.
In short, the point has to do primarily with economics and not spirituality or religion. So, I fear you may have read to much into the point being made.