Jewish Identity and Wall Street: Challenging and Legitimizing Capitalist Systems

In their first year of business school, many finance students will be introduced to the idea that markets are naturally efficient and foreordained to experience bulls and bears—vernacular economic highs and lows. Thus, right off the bat, markets are legitimized and given value based on the assertion that they are a natural phenomenon representing natural occurrences. This becomes a baseline assumption grounding many financial workers, normalized and embedded in the culture of Wall Street. This understanding serves as a foundation for financial practice with the power to bankrupt nations and hatch billionaires.

The New York financial industry, often referred to as “Wall Street,” is a global center for capitalism based out of New York City. Ethnographer Karen Ho defines Wall Street as “the concentrations of financial institutions and actor-networks (investment banks, pension and mutual funds, stock exchanges, hedge funds and private equity firms) that embody a particular financial ethos and set of practices, and act as primary spokespeople for the globalization of U.S. capitalism.”^[1] As such, Wall Street is not only an industry or network for businesses, but the institutionalization of a culture containing a particular set of views and practices—ones that are often regarded negatively by many Americans. Points of controversy include Wall Street’s exclusivity, wealth, power, relationship to market systems, and in some instances of conjecture, the notion that it is controlled by Jewish people. In response to perceived economic injustice perpetrated by Wall Street and calls to end systems that reinforce wealth barriers,^[2] movements such as Occupy Wall Street have risen to combat Wall Street’s practices and their underlying values and systems.

As stated, one damaging stereotype of Wall Street is that it is run by Jews. Rooted in myths of Jews as moneylenders,^[3] and antisemitic portrayals of Jews as usurers, this stereotype continues to shape uninformed discourse about Wall Street.^[4] According to a 2020 Anti-Defamation League report, 14 percent of Americans believe that Jews have too much control over Wall Street, 15 percent believe that Jews have too much power in the business world, and 11 percent believe that Jewish businessmen are overly-shrewd and dominate competition.^[5] Thus, unfortunately, Judaism has become intertwined with this conversation about the ethics of Wall Street.

The cognitive tie between Jews and capitalism may in fact run even deeper, according to historian Jerry Muller. He suggests that social exclusion and diasporic circumstances have historically driven Jews to commerce, perhaps establishing such a link between Jews and capitalism.^[6] However, Muller also notes that Jews have also at times been associated with opposition to capitalism, indicating that through the years, non-Jews have imposed a wide range of economic affiliations upon Jewish people.^[7]

In the 21^st century, many Jewish people have been proudly employed within the New York financial industry; and many Jews have also stood opposed to this industry. Jewish opposition to Wall Street was especially visible during the 2011 Occupy Judaism movement, when Jews involved with Occupy Wall Street gathered to celebrate the high holidays amid the protest. In sermons recited in call-and-response fashions to facilitate their amplification through a human microphone, rabbis asserted that Jewish texts and principles champion Occupy Wall Street’s grievances and advocate for these Jewish ethics to be sanctioned in regulation of capital. Jewish ethics have continued to be deployed in movements against Wall Street as recently as October 2021 when the Jewish Youth Climate Movement organized a climate protest at BlackRock’s (an investment management firm) Manhattan headquarters. The protest called for BlackRock’s Jewish founder and CEO “to stand by his Jewish values and end BlackRock’s funding of the fossil fuel industry and end human rights violations.”^[8]

As of September 2021, the Occupy Wall Street movement has celebrated its ten-year anniversary. A Jewish New Yorker myself, I became interested in this research upon reflecting on my own childhood memories of the Occupy movement and relevant ethical questions as I enter adulthood and consider my own moral and economic stances. This research will analyze findings from a study centered around the controversy over the New York financial industry’s morality from a Jewish ethics angle with the understanding that Wall Street is a hub for financial ethics and practice—a case study for capitalist ventures. More than subjects’ opinions though, findings will focus on the insider-outsider dynamics that correlate with values and approaches to capitalist systems in America. What follows will explore how Jewish identity is in conversation with views of economic systems, with emphasis on what is considered “natural.” Among the Jewish New Yorkers with whom I spoke for this project, determinations of what is natural related to attitudes toward capitalist systems and Jewish identity. Whereas critics of Wall Street saw themselves as drawing on Jewish tradition to disrupt economic systems, Wall Street insiders were more likely to see those systems as natural and not in tension with their Jewish identities.

Methods

For the sake of this research, I identified two subject groups: insiders and critics. The insiders, a group of thirteen Jewish individuals sourced through snowball sampling, were executives on Wall Street who were working at investment banks, hedge funds, alternative-investment firms, and other companies in the New York financial industry. All these individuals will remain anonymous throughout this research to ensure candor and avoid review by their institutions. On the other side of the spectrum, the thirteen critics were a more varied group of Jewish individuals from New York (either currently living there or having lived there previously) and who, in one way or another, positioned themselves as social critics who have critiqued the financial sector, capitalism, and economic injustice. As the insiders are executives at the near top of their respective food chains—managing directors and vice presidents of international institutions among them—so too are the critics leaders in the fields including notable rabbis, shepherds of social movements, and vanguard voices. Some of these individuals opted to remain anonymous, as well. Anonymous individuals will be designated pseudonyms as indicated in the endnotes to protect confidentiality.

In a total of twenty-six semi-structured interviews conducted virtually, insiders and critics were asked about their Jewish identities, worldviews, guiding values, monetary philosophies, and thoughts on present financial and economic systems. Unlike the insiders who work in the financial industry and also happen to be Jewish, many of the critics’ careers and/or ministries are engaged with the intersection of Judaism and industry. Thus, many critics interviewed have previously formed positions on such topics discussed, whereas most insiders were asked to confront such connections between their Jewish identities and their financial careers for potentially the first time outside of personal reflection.

Jewish Identity

As suggested above, Jews have a wide range of attitudes regarding the financial sector’s morality and may invoke Judaism or Jewish ethics in a variety of ways. Notably, there is no one Jewish ethic, nor one Jewish economic ethic, and ancient Jewish texts often do not clearly translate to modern economic contexts.^[9] Still, those who value their Jewish identity do sometimes find ethical guidance in Jewish tradition regarding economic issues. The critics with whom I spoke were especially likely to describe Jewish tradition and Jewish identity as foundational to their beliefs about economics. This is not surprising, as I initially contacted critics associated with advocacy groups that engaged with Jewish identity and tradition, and these critics put me in touch with others passionate about Judaism and economic justice, many of whom were rabbis. When I asked them about their economic philosophies, these critics often referenced Jewish texts or values that they associated with their Jewish identity, and concepts including tzedakah, tithes, the jubilee year, or the yetzer hara (evil inclination).

Among insiders, by contrast, few suggested that their Judaism explicitly influenced their views of economics. Most saw Jewish identity or Judaism as contributing to their sense of personal morality because it was ingrained in their family life and upbringing. “Yes, I’m Jewish. Yes, I have a sense of morality,” said Leah, an executive who focuses on capital markets. “I don’t know whether that sense of morality came from my Judaism or just came from my parents instilling that in me. Maybe that’s because they’re Jewish, maybe that’s just because they have that sense of morality.”^[10] Many insiders centered their Jewish identities around experiences celebrating Jewish holidays in their youth. “I grew up going to Hebrew school, learning about the traditions and celebrating the major holidays,” said Sarah, a fixed income saleswoman. “What religion means to me is family get-togethers.”^[11] Additionally, many discerned their Jewish identity in relation to their families’ Holocaust and immigration stories. “My family came over in the early 1900s but came over with no money and not a lot of opportunity,” explained Elijah, a trader. “So, I think that immigrant mentality and Jewish background… played a huge role in my life and the story that my parents taught me.”^[12] Moreover, in describing what shaped their moral compasses, some struggled to identify distinct ways that their Jewish identities could be separated from familial identities. “I don’t know if it’s a Jewish thing or this is just the way I am from my upbringing,”^[13] explained salesman Daniel, reflecting on his values. Samuel, another fixed income salesman echoes these sentiments: “Obviously I identify myself as Jewish, but I don’t think it really ever made me, me… I think that I’ve always cared about the practices, and I’ve always cared about doing the right things, but I don’t know that that’s mutually exclusive to my religion or my faith. I think it’s really, honestly, about the way I was raised and maybe you could trace that back to being Jewish.”^[14] As such, insiders seldom tied their Jewish identities directly to business ethics.

Indeed, whereas critics generally saw their Jewish identities as guiding their approaches to thinking about economics, most insiders saw their Jewish identities as a more private matter. Even the most observant insiders separated their careers from their personal lives that were intertwined with their Jewish identity. Even David, one Orthodox fixed income trader at a major bank who early in our conversation told me that “I would say that the Jewish code of ethics and morals informs what I do throughout the day, even if I’m not doing something specifically Jewish,”^[15] later made a clear distinction between the values that would apply at work and those that would not. I read this individual a quote from Exodus 22:24, often associated with business ethics, and asked for his reflections. The quote reads, “If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, do not act toward them as a creditor; exact no interest from them.”^[16]

“My understanding of that and interpretation of that, based on my studies, is that it doesn’t really apply to business dealings,”^[17] David responded, explaining that such practices without interest would interfere with capitalist forces such as risk, commerce, and development. Therefore, not only did insiders not relate their economic views to their Jewish identity, but this privatization of their Jewish identity separated these views completely from their personal values. When asked to define what success would look like in their life, most insiders questioned whether I meant professionally or personally, identifying separate realms of goals and values. “How would I define career success or success in life?”^[18] clarified David. For insiders, their financial ethos—inescapably tied up in their professional life—was often deemed to be separate from or unrelated to personal values. Also responding to the same Exodus verse, Sarah explained a divided thought process:

I think it [Exodus 22:24] speaks to what I think about in terms of personal things versus what I do professionally, because I do think that sometimes lending money in a personal sense is viewed as the person is in need and looking at them in a different way, which is what I think the quote is speaking to. Whereas professionally… there’s no negative connotation with raising the money.^[19]

By contrast, writer and political organizer Joshua saw the interest-free model set up by Exodus 22 as applicable to the current financial system:

I think it’s beautiful… to the extent that there’s a need for a finance sector at all, that it ought to be based on that principle, that it’s not extractive, that it lends in order to enable the borrower to affect the purpose in the world that the loan is for, and that the purpose is not to profit off of that by charging interest, and that if you make the principal back as a lender, that that is as good as it can be, and that if you’re actually extracting anything over and above it, then you’re not repairing. You’re not building the world. You’re breaking it.^[20]

Systems of Morality

More generally, insiders understood personal values and actions to be individual and subjective. This was demonstrated by blaming individuals for problems with capitalism and Wall Street rather than the systems within which these actors are working. Further, within this ethos, money must be obtained within the boundaries of the law—part of the system—but how one spends what they have legally earned is an individual undertaking that should not be judged by others. “I think there are what people would view as the right and wrong way to spend their money,” stated an insider, Joseph, who works in capital markets, “but I think it’s tough to criticize someone for doing what they want to do, with what is theirs.”^[21]

In comparison, critics regarded morality as more comprehensive and collective. One critic and rabbi, Abigail, stated that although there may be cultural cues that dictate exceptions, she saw ethics as objective. “I think I have bought into an ethical system within Judaism where I think that there are definitely things that you should be doing,” she said. “I don’t think that every part of that ethical system is universally applicable to all people, but I do think that there are some things that are… unethical for all people to engage in.”^[22] Therefore, systems must adapt to meet collective ethical standards, not the other way around. “I also think that as the public’s awareness becomes fixed…Wall Street has to change,”^[23] Rabbi Jill Hausman of The Actors’ Temple in New York City told me. For insiders, as morality is individual but systems are fixed, justice requires individuals to change, not systems. Alternatively, for many critics, changing systems—whether that be reforming or dismantling—is required for justice.

Politics of Nature

The separation between spheres of life and morality for insiders may be due to their consensus that capitalist systems are “natural.” Consistent with the Wall Street insiders whom Ho interviewed for her ethnography of Wall Street, the insiders with whom I spoke described market systems and economic laws as natural.^[24] One critic, Rabbi Andrue Kahn of Congregation Emanu-El of the City of New York, speculated on this phenomenon: “There’s a whole Adam Smith idea of the invisible hand of God moving the market, and that actually assumes that the market is good, or at least that’s the way people talk about it, as if somehow the market is a natural consequence of society and is therefore in and of itself, good.”^[25] Insiders, all self-proclaimed capitalists, consistently explained to me that capitalism and the market principles that drive it are simply inevitable. Though many insiders noted downsides of capitalism such as economic gaps and unemployment, they did not see these concessions as weaknesses nor flaws of the system. Rather, they are the enactment of natural forces. “I believe in supply and demand setting the agenda. And I believe that market forces create the ultimate outcome,”^[26] stated Levi, a managing director. Furthermore, these natural forces are then followed by financial practice that is also interpreted as natural, as explained by Elijah:

I think a lot of what finance is, is human behavior. It is someone who is willing to loan someone money or loan them something, and they want something in return. So, I think there’s just a natural aspect of that. I think that if you look at, for example, trading, my part of the business, people want to negotiate and get a better deal. I think a little bit of that is just human nature. So, I think if you look at the transfer of money, or if you look at capital markets activity, et cetera, a lot of it is just human behavior by nature… Whether that’s people loaning dollars or loaning a commodity or loaning a car or a horse or anything like that, a lot of it is just natural in terms of the way the human, for millions of years, has behaved.^[27]

“That’s just how it is,” is a phrase I heard many times from insiders throughout the course of my research. Many emphasized that within the framework foundational to capitalist systems, economic bears and bulls, highs and lows, are natural and inevitable and economic inequality is an unavoidable reality. “I don’t think you can ever alleviate poverty,” explained a financial worker, Nathan, who then pointed to even the most instinctive of social systems. “In any kind of society system, the animal kingdom, whatever… there’s always going to be people in poverty, probably.”^[28] And as it is considered natural, it is therefore deemed acceptable. “Parts of the capitalist society that I would like to see [change]? No. I don’t think so,”^[29] said one insider, Joseph. With poverty dismissed as an acceptable systemic casualty, capitalism is upheld as a golden natural phenomenon, epitomized on Wall Street.

Largely, insiders blamed the faults of capitalism and Wall Street on bad or greedy individuals, with both the instigators and the system described as natural phenomena. Many insiders referenced experiences with unethical individuals—people who they perceived as acting in ways lower than they ever would in the pursuit of money. Acts of contention included lying and the breaching of private information, at times putting the customer below one’s own desires for profit. Greed, however, is not a bad quality according to many insiders interviewed. Rather, greed is natural—part of human nature inside everyone and often framed as a motivator for productivity. “I think everybody looks to achieve success,”^[30] said Daniel. Similarly, insiders were more likely than critics to believe that people are inherently greedy—taking the nature side of the nature versus nurture debate. Still, while greed may be inherent and thus acceptable, it does not excuse immoral behavior such as lying or breaching confidentiality. Those who cross this line are deemed the bad actors at fault for they have surpassed a natural inclination for greed and breached negatively into the realm of what may be controlled: one’s actions. This sentiment was expressed by Elijah.

Greed, by itself, I don’t think is bad. I think people fighting hard to be successful is a good thing. I think when greed then turns into people making bad moral choices or taking shortcuts for that success, that’s where it’s a concern. But I think that the fact that someone is greedy or wants to be super successful or make a ton of money, I don’t think is bad by its nature. I think it’s, one, how they do it, and then what they do with that outcome.^[31]

Moreover, capitalism is seen as reacting to greed, its success perhaps even dependent on it. “The idea that you can have a functioning economy without greed and desire to create profit, it would be a shitshow,”^[32] said Noam, a managing director. This natural tendency maintains the natural system, explained Sarah:

A lot of the reason that a lot of people work in this industry is because they’re chasing the money and then in some cases you would call that greedy. But I also think that chasing the money helps people work hard at these jobs, which… does help support corporate America, which does create jobs outside of the financial realm. Sometimes being a little greedy and working towards that to try and make more money and be more successful to provide for your family, to provide for education, all those things that invest in our community and give back in a way that continues to help the whole ecosystem of life.^[33]

By contrast, critics acknowledged that which they considered natural, but did not necessarily deem those factors positive and often emphasized the importance of curbing them and acting on free will rather than relying on “inherent” factors. “I don’t think there’s any nature in it, it’s all nurture,”^[34] said Ben Murane, executive director of the New Israel Fund of Canada. “Everyone is inherently good and bad, and it’s about trying to figure out how to balance the two within ourselves,” said Kahn. “That’s what the yetzer ha-tov [good inclination] and the yetzer hara [evil inclination] are.”^[35] Many critics referred to this Rabbinic concept of the yetzer hara, or evil inclination, often associated with self-interest, lust, or greed. While they described the yetzer hara as part of human nature, it is still seen as evil. Often associated with greed in a negative way, critics deemed it necessary for humans to abate the natural yetzer hara to the best of their ability while acknowledging that it is part of human nature and therefore never to be completely extinguished. Kahn continued,

If your entire life is focused on just doing business and trading and making as much money as possible, or your entire life is focused on having the biggest and the biggest houses you can find or that your entire life is making sure that you can hoard as much wealth as possible so your family will have this huge name forever and ever and ever, right? Those are the things that are when the yetzer hara goes too far. You have to have some yetzer hara for the world to exist. God created it for a reason, but one of the core goals of rabbinic Judaism is reining the yetzer hara in. There are all these stories of the rabbis trying to destroy it all together and that meant that the world stopped, basically, so they couldn’t, but that shows the tension there.^[36]

In some cases, though, the yetzer hara is depicted as inspiring positive results. Rabbi Michael Rothbaum, a congregational rabbi, stated, “We try to prevail over the yetzer hara, the evil urge. On the other hand, they say that if it wasn’t for the evil urge, the yetzer hara, a human wouldn’t start a family. They wouldn’t build a house. They wouldn’t get a job. There’s a sense that if there was no ego drive, that people might not create anything.”^[37]

Furthermore, some critics also understood economic systems as a response to natural needs and circumstances; however, many of these critics explained that current capitalist systems fail to meet such needs. As such, many critics urged that systems be changed to better meet natural needs such as that for food and shelter. Gabriel, a rabbi and faith-based investor, summarizes,

There’s a certain amount of economics that is like gospel. It’s just not based on reality. It’s based on what we want to believe. The other thing about the markets though is that they… are very effective at doing certain things. The problem is, are they doing what we want them to? So, a lot of voices I’ve heard, especially black leaders in the impact investing community post-COVID saying, ‘This is exactly what the markets were designed to do. They were designed to cause wealth to accumulate to certain people and to strip it away from others.’ That’s one take on the markets. And that would suggest that the markets are not fundamentally good, and we should probably get rid of them.^[38]

Because needs are not being met, some degree of greed or self-interest is therefore seen as natural—both fulfilling the yetzer hara and responding to benign needs that promote wellbeing and survival. Other critics, such as Joshua, dismissed claims that capitalist markets are natural at all: “There’s this idea that there’s this pure free market capitalism, that supply and demand would create an efficient distribution of resources if only it weren’t for government intervention. That’s just a thing that people believe. It’s in econ 101 textbooks. It’s in the culture. And it’s complete bullshit 100% of the time.”^[39]

Approaches to Systems

When asked about the social impacts of Wall Street, most insiders noted that Wall Street pushes large philanthropic initiatives addressing problems such as poverty. When they suggested changes to address shortcomings of the industry, they focused on policies to manage and prevent the malpractice of individuals, ensure individual accountability, or create more diverse work environments, rather than drastically changing the way that the financial sector operates. “I think there’s people, senior people, bosses, that allow stuff to go on because they want to make money… so there has to be more accountability. Senior people have to not be nervous about approaching someone that is the moneymaker of the business and still shut them down because he’s doing unethical stuff,”^[40] revealed loan trader Isaac. Others explained that Wall Street performs a valuable public service, understanding financial services as a utility benefiting society. “I think of the financial industry as a public utility in a way, or the same way you have an internet provider and a phone company,” said Caleb, a bond trader. “I think that’s the real function of what these institutions are supposed to do, help create and preserve people’s wealth.”^[41]

Such insider sentiments align with what religious social ethicist Rebecca Todd Peters defines as a neoliberal theology of globalization. Neoliberalism, the first of four ideological categories that Peters discusses, sees globalization as beneficial and favors a laissez-faire economic structure of government deregulation and privatization. In line with the ideology of Adam Smith, key neoliberal values include individualism, prosperity, and freedom, morality as individualistic and with self-interest understood to play into an invisible hand of the market which will correct itself and result in an overall good economy.^[42] Many insiders—employed on Wall Street and so acting as agents for globalization—expressed ideals of success and individualism aligning with this neoliberal ideology. Elijah defines success, both for himself and the economy, within such a framework:

I think success for me, it’s having the ability to do what I want… I think a lot of it is tied to dollars in terms of being able to be in that position. … When you zoom out, bird’s-eye view of the function of what it is that we do in financial services, I think it’s very important for the economy and, ultimately, helps the economy run and grow.^[43]

When I asked insiders if they perceived a reasonable alternative to American financial capitalism, many insiders referenced communist states such as China, the USSR, and Cuba as the unthinkable other, unable or unwilling to conceptualize an in-between or alternate system. Of the ten insiders who were willing to disclose their political party, four identified as Democrats or as left-of-center. These individuals were more likely to offer suggestions for improvement to policy regulating American systems that would not hinder capitalism but may ease some of its downsides. Such suggestions included updated taxation policies and increased regulation on industries including Wall Street and Silicon Valley.

By contrast, only two of the thirteen critics identified as capitalist, and many directly opposed capitalist systems. Some claimed that capitalism is inherently evil or at least flawed. “I don’t want to give that very glib, ‘there are no ethical choices under capitalism,’ right? It’s not that black and white, but I think that the area is gray,”^[44] said Abigail. Others, like Rabbi Jonathan Slater of the Institute for Jewish Spirituality were in favor of social capitalist models including social welfare programs inspired by some European systems. Additionally, some critics did view properly regulated capitalism as having positive aspects or agreed with capitalism in theory (mentioning the value of freedom or competition), but criticized how American capitalism functions in practice, pointing to the prevalence of poverty and inequality. “There is a way in which the capitalist system, which allows for individual endeavor and risk taking for the sake of producing improvements to human life, is, I think, a meaningful system,” said Slater. “And left to its own devices, as it has been, it becomes predatory, unjust and leads to great social dislocation and stratification, which is not healthy for a society.”^[45] This is reflective of what Peters describes as a second theology for globalization: the development perspective. The development perspective values responsibility, progress, and equity, with a lack of confidence in the market’s ‘invisible hand.’ As such, development thinkers see rising inequality as evidence of injustice within current systems and believe in communal and state responsibility to those affected by poverty.^[46] Among my participants, critics were far more likely than insiders to express sentiments aligning with this ideology, voiced by Rabbi Hausman who ties in Jewish ethics with this philosophy:

Fairness, equal opportunity, equal justice, making restitution to people who have been disadvantaged, providing equality in education and in housing. [The Torah] teaches that it’s not an us/them universe. It’s all of us. So more for me doesn’t mean less for you. The universe is supposed to work when everyone cooperates and collaborates, then there’s more for everyone.^[47]

All critics expressed desire for increased regulation and many support systemic changes such as universal healthcare and making the banks public entities.

Many critics saw Wall Street as perpetuating economic inequality and as holding too much power over corporate America, but few saw Wall Street as worse than other corporate actors. “I don’t see Wall Street in particular [as] more unethical than other companies. They’re reacting to an ethos that we’ve allowed to be cultivated in this culture,” said Rothbaum, who had spoken in the sukkah built at Occupy Wall Street in 2011. “We’ve got an entire culture built around making sure that the needs of corporations are attended to so that we have to make sure productivity increases. Productivity is a nice word, but that means the number of hours you can squeeze out of a human being, that’s productivity.”^[48] Additionally, whereas insiders blamed problems with Wall Street on individuals, critics blamed both individuals and faulty systems. Abigail stated, “I think the issue is absolutely systemic. I just think like the whole a few bad apples in any industry argument is so stupid. It’s just like not millions and millions if not billions of people aren’t affected by a system as the result of a few bad apples, nobody actually has that much power individually. It’s a system that keeps afloat and runs itself.”^[49] Other critics noted that one cannot operate without the other and that the system may encourage greedy individuals who then have the power to maintain such a system, as expressed by Slater:

Each influences the other. So, the theory of economics created a regulatory atmosphere, which then contributed to a mindset that led people to behave in certain ways that are immoral or unethical and destructive. So, those people are responsible for their behavior, but they didn’t create the context in which they behaved. They inherited it. And therefore, it’s also people who are responsible for changing the cultural givens in which business and finance takes place.^[50]

Whereas insiders viewed capitalism as an ideal system, critics critiqued capitalism using all three common argumentation strategies against capitalism identified by social philosopher Rahel Jaeggi. The first, the functional critique, is depicting capitalism as inherently dysfunctional (ex: “there’s so much systemically, that’s keeping people from being successful and everything that goes with that”).^[51] Second, the moral critique condemns capitalism on the basis of inequality (ex: “We’re failing. In the midst of a pandemic, the richest people are accumulating more and more wealth. What? There should be demonstrations in the streets about that”).^[52] Last, there’s the ethical argument that critiques capitalism based on its perpetuation of a negative or alienating quality of life, including damaging human connections (ex: “I think that as long as people on Wall Street have this idea that more money is always the goal, it becomes harder and harder to connect to other human. … It creates these levels of distance and makes money into a game instead of into a means to an end, which is hopefully a positive quality of life and something where you can just live comfortably with others”).^[53]–[54]

The critics’ disapproval of capitalism often employed a combination or all three of these methods. Conversely, the insiders did not criticize capitalism in a systematic way, and were more concerned by immoral actors whom they saw as acting outside the system. Whereas insiders may pose the capitalist system as ideal, critics are more likely to point out flaws. Murane even noted that all system may inherently be flawed: “all systems have benefits and drawbacks.”^[55]

Some critics’ moral critiques expressed more radical objections to capitalist and Wall Street systems that proliferate the global economy, making critiques associated with the final two approaches to globalization described by Peters: earthism and postcolonialism. Earthism prioritizes the environment in its critique of globalization in its current existence with focus on mutuality, justice, and sustainability. Murane engaged this critique, for example, when he argued that “it’s not just about rich and poor, let’s look at other really important issues that deal with money. It’s also the potential climate collapse, climate change. It’s not about rich or poor, it’s about all of us and our future.”^[56] Postcolonialism centers on how globalization oversteps the autonomy of cultures and communities, similar to what West End Synagogue’s Rabbi Emily Cohen raised in her critique:

I think that any society that’s about economic uplift, community uplift, would have to involve some form of reparations for slavery. I think that right now, racial justice and economic justice are really tied together. And unless we were to do something as a society to acknowledge the horrific wrongs of our collective ancestors, I don’t think that we could ever have proper economic justice. It would just be maybe some steps in that direction.^[57]

Positionality

For Jewish people engaged in the debate over Wall Street’s morality, from Modern Orthodox hedge fund executives to Reform Occupy Judaism organizers, Jewish identity—whether understood as religious or political affiliation, cultural heritage, or otherwise—is but one piece of the puzzle that shapes their identity and the stance from which they view the world. Those who positioned their Jewish identities as more public saw Jewish ethics as all-encompassing and discounted the idea that existing economic systems are natural. Those who viewed Jewish identity as a private function tangled within other identities saw these systems as natural systems and perceived that life may be broken into categories. Whether Jewish identity as a source of positionality shapes these values or vice versa is unclear.

This point may be demonstrated by two insider exceptions. Most insiders concurred that financial systems are natural and favorable; however, there were two outliers, the two insiders who disclosed to me their identity as Orthodox Jews, whose Jewish identities were perhaps less private than their insider colleagues. One of these individuals, Noam, a managing director, questioned the idea that financial markets are natural. “The textbook says they’re natural, but it’s people who make markets,”^[58] he explained, diverging from the consensus of most insiders. The second outlying individual, David, also (more hesitantly) questioned capitalist systems’ natural definition as well as the idea that being natural is necessarily good.

I do believe that the nature of human beings, going back as far as you can, is to engage in commerce. I think that, broadly speaking, our market structure mimics that. Now, I think there are many rules, man-made rules in place to try and make the market more fair, more efficient. Is it perfect? No, but I think that things are a lot better today than they were hundreds of years ago.^[59]

The fact that these were these Orthodox individuals were the only two to stray from the insider consensus expresses a correlation between worldview and the priority given to religion as a defining fixture of one’s intersectional identity.

Conclusion

As the 10-year anniversary of Occupy Wall Street came and went in 2021, the debate over Wall Street’s morality continues, inextricably tied to conversations about Jewish identity and people. In this study canvassing the opinions of both insiders and critics to the New York financial industry, it became clear that a wide range of Jewish ethics exist and no one text nor rule can be applied universally to suit all Jewish perspectives regarding Wall Street. However, Jewish identity may influence one’s economic philosophy. While social critics are more likely to draw a direct link from Jewish tradition to economic ethics, how one positions their Jewish identity within their life may also be significant. In this case, many insiders separate their Jewish identity and personal lives from their business persona. Furthermore, while insiders view ethics as subjective, critics suggest a more objective approach to morality. These different positions on morality may frame what one deems to be natural and whether natural systems are deemed to be good and/or inevitable. Whereas insiders are more likely to see what they discern as natural entities to be positive and fixed, critics are more likely to question and promote the disruption of “natural” systems. These factors—one’s Jewish identity and their orientation of what’s natural—must be a part of this controversy’s conversation. Overall, this paper finds that for Jews engaged in the debate over Wall Street’s morality, one’s determination of what is natural will determine both their positionality and values in relation to capitalist systems and Jewish identity.