"God helps those that help themselves," says Benjamin Franklin in his feature work Poor Richard's Almanac. Franklin continuously preaches that we all should strive for personal financial success, and naturally society will be benefited as a result.

This constant quest for financial growth leading to the betterment of society is an underlying theme of capitalism in general-but is financial success the end game? How does one even obtain that monetary success in the first place?

Steve Jobs, founder of Apple and Sergey Brin and Larry Page, founders of Google, can certainly answer the question of how to amass wealth. In the summer of 2012, the two tech companies were succeeding at remarkable rates, with stock prices soaring. Google was trading at around $750, its android smartphone software was continuing to gain market share, and ad revenue-its greatest source of revenue-was soaring. Apple was sharing similar financial triumph at the time. Trading at more then $700 a share, Apple was continuing to see remarkable profit margins in the industries it virtually created: the modern day smartphone with the iPhone and tablet industry with the iPad. Jobs, Brin and Page had most certainly achieved financial success.

Since that summer the two companies have gone in opposite directions. Apple's stock price has since fallen to $520-almost a $200 dip-while Google is trading at around $1020 a share-nearly a $300 gain-as of Monday. Furthermore, Apple has since started paying-albeit a small-cash dividend to its shareholders. While intuitively this seems like a sign of profitability, releasing dividends is usually a sign of a stock changing from a growth stock, a stock constantly trying to grow its profits, to a value stock, a stock trying to sustain its current profits. So what happened to Apple that caused the decline? How has Google been able to continue its impressive growth?

It all comes back to the intuitive nature of the companies. Steve Jobs, the mastermind behind Apple, passed away, and with him, his business model. Products can be replicated and improved upon; that was never the issue. Apple has continued to push out updates to their current products. Rather, it was the fundamental goals of Jobs that were stripped from the company with his passing. Jobs wanted to create products that people don't even know they want, hence the new industries they created. People didn't know they wanted a touch screen smartphone until the iPhone hit shelves. No one saw the purpose of a tablet computer until the iPad was sold to the masses. Jobs created products for society to adapt to, and they did. He was helping society progress through technology. Society then paid for the products, and Apple, behind Jobs' leadership, made a profit. The capitalist society was improved as a positive externality of the personal financial gain.

The same holds true with Google. Google continues to create products that they feel contribute to the betterment of society. The company thinks Google Glass, the yet-to-be released glasses that run on the Android software and include GPS, webcam and other Android features, will ease the lives of all who wear it, despite the fact that everyone is just fine without it. The driverless car, another Google beta project, has applications that range from military operations to preventing drunk driving. Evidently, companies that contribute to the betterment of society are the ones that make money.

This concept can be applied on a more macro scale as well. Take the big-bank industry. At its purest state, banks are an essential part of the capitalist society. Banks hold the keys to the lending that promote growth in the economy. Without them, there would be no way for businesses to obtain the capital necessary to expand, and by extension continue to make profit. Banks hold a necessary piece to the betterment of a capitalist society, and the large profit margins follow.

The reverse trend is true as well. When individuals or corporations don't positively contribute to society, their profits take a downward turn, either naturally or by government intervention. Take the recent events regarding JPMorgan Chase. Earlier this month, the bank and the government entered a preliminary $13 billion settlement to end investigations into whether the bank misled investors when it bundled subprime mortgages into bonds before the financial crisis. The day after the deal was announced, Chase's stock price went up, for they took accountability for their actions. Yet, a few days ago when rumors of the deal falling apart broke, the stock price dropped. The market recognized the stability that comes with following the rules, and in turn recognized the instability with avoiding them. Accepting responsibility for their actions and paying for their mistakes leads to future financial gain; running from their mistakes does not.

Big business must accept this fundamental aspect of a capitalist society: contributions to society foster profits and the reverse breeds internal financial ruin. Corporations should not be asking how to increase profits; they should be asking how their product or service helps society progress. Once the company discovers a way to improve society, the profits will naturally follow. The end of being rich is not important; how you got there is.
*