"Obscenely Rich"

I'm having a "take back the language" moment. It has become so commonplace to tack the word "obscene" in front of the words "rich" or "wealthy" that even people who believe in the right of people to earn and keep their wealth sometimes do it (unthinkingly, I hope).

In the above-linked article, Paul Kengor refers to Steve Jobs as "obscenely rich." No, Mr. Kengor, Jobs wasn't obscenely rich. He was beautifully, brilliantly, wonderfully rich. It is a hard, cold fact that in his pursuit of his wonderful wealth, Jobs brought more opportunity and prosperity to people via direct employment and via the indirect effect of the incredible usefulness of the devices his company produced than all the anti-poverty programs of the 34 years since the introduction of the Apple II.

He could have donated all his wealth to charity and it wouldn't have begun to touch the good he did through his so-called "greed" and "obscene" wealth.

Bill Gates is widely known and respected for his charitable work, but frankly, I think that is such misplaced respect that it's almost laughable -- Gates has done more for the poor -- by keeping so many people from being poor -- by ruthlessly driving Microsoft to become the corporate giant it is than any possible benefit of his charitable activities.

I wouldn't trade one Steve Jobs for a million Lyndon Johnsons, or even a million Mother Theresas, because of million of them would just be a million people making millions of people comfortable in their poverty, but a million Steve Jobs would be a million people creating prosperity for many millions more.

There's nothing obscene about wealth. We owe the wealthy so much. Once upon a time, we found nothing wrong with admiring the wealth of a Rockefeller or a Hearst. We need to rekindle that admiration once again. It's not obscene. Don't let people tell you it is.