Seattle’s iconic Brooks Running Co. was once on the brink of ruin. CEO Jim Weber, however, never lost hope in what he calls the “positive power of the run.”

Weber, who joined Brooks as CEO in 2001, engineered an aggressive turnaround. Now a stand-alone subsidiary of Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Brooks has been on a growth tear of late, increasing both brick-and-mortar and e-commerce sales. Ernst & Young recognized Weber as an Entrepreneur of the Year and ”Runner’s World” in 2015 named him one of the most influential innovators in the running industry.

Weber earlier this year released a memoir, “Running With Purpose: How Brooks Outpaced Goliath Competitors to Lead the Pack.” It is published by HarperCollins Leadership, an imprint of HarperCollins Focus LLC.

Following is an excerpt. 

Brooks is a branded products business that is committed to inspiring and welcoming all into running and an active lifestyle, but we know the income of our customer matters. The truth is that the choice to invest in your health and fitness and take up running requires you to first satisfy life’s basic needs. If you are struggling to feed or care for yourself or your family and are working two or more jobs to make ends meet, taking time to be active will often fall by the wayside. For Brooks, the stronger the middle class, the more people who will have the time and wherewithal to invest in their fitness. 

Income inequality is also a driver of sports participation and the public health risk factor. A May 2021 report from the Aspen Institute found that wealthier children played sports more during the pandemic than poorer kids. As I said earlier, everything good in life starts with being healthy. Activity matters for everyone, and the gaps are evident between the rich and the poor in health, education, and economic opportunities. It turns out our income inequality is also highly correlated with both inactivity and obesity, which are key risks driving health care costs in our system. Though Brooks cannot solve income inequality on a broad-based, systemic level, we can help provide access to running in communities that are disproportionately affected by income inequality. One of the programs I’m most proud of at Brooks is our Brooks Booster Club, a needs-based grant program that provides performance running footwear, apparel, and funding to under-resourced high school cross country and track teams. Since 2015, the Brooks Booster Club has granted 150 schools and 6,100 runners nationwide, investing more than $2.1 million in cash and gear to keep these programs alive. 

From a young age, I was awed by and became infatuated with the potential, promise, and yes, the “specialness” of the evolving American experiment as a liberal democracy: 

• a government representative of the people with fair elections of leaders, 
• a separation of powers into different branches of government, 
• the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, 
• a market economy with private property, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and religious and political freedoms for all people. 

But with decades of most of the economic benefits flowing to the top 1 percent, many people now sense that the economy and the system are not working for them, and the data are clear: They are right. 

Since March 2020, the Federal Reserve has injected more than $4 trillion into the economy through the purchase of treasury, bank, and private debt securities resulting in many companies getting financed through the economic crisis than otherwise would be the case. Couple that with $2.8 trillion in federal government support to individuals and businesses, and the scale of the nearly $7 trillion in support and stimulus is hard to fathom. The wealthiest 1 percent and businesses with strong balance sheets and profits were strong coming into the crisis following nearly a decade of economic growth, rising equity and real estate valuations plus major tax cuts in 2018. After the stimulus, the world is now awash in capital as evidenced by a rebounding stock market, increasing asset values from real estate to commodities. The net of all of this is that wealth is accelerating in this new decade for those who have it while making everything more expensive for those who do not. 

Another driver of inequality over the last forty years has been industry consolidation as there are fewer competitive companies in every industry. Structurally, we need to address antitrust laws and enforcement. Or better stated, we need to create new competition laws that address the consolidation across our economy. I have some experience on this topic as I wrote economic analysis for merger approval submissions to regulatory authorities at Pillsbury. 

At Tuck, one of my favorite classes featured Judge Robert Bork’s influential book “The Antitrust Paradox.” A lasting influence of the book was that the principal criterion that should be used for antitrust policy is consumer benefit. This philosophy changed policy in the government and the courts, allowing rampant consolidation leading to many monopolies, near monopolies, and cartel-like industry structures causing much destruction of smaller businesses across the landscape. In economics and life, a singular focus on one thing such as consumer benefit can be taken too far and create other problems including destroying whole industries, competition, and jobs. It is time to go back to more balanced policies incorporating the impact on the industries. New voices including Senator Amy Klobuchar in her recent book, “Antitrust: Taking on Monopoly Power from the Gilded Age to the Digital Age,” are leading the path forward. The impact of less concentrated industries over time would be more companies competing, innovating, and creating jobs across the economy. 

Finally, a myriad of other policies have contributed to our nation’s economic gains disproportionately benefiting the top 1 percent. These include the impact of globalization on jobs, the decline of unions, the lack of a living minimum wage, compelling training and apprentice opportunities in the trades, the cost and access to education (and the resulting student loan burdens), lack of affordable childcare, lack of early learning for children, and a fair-share tax system. The tax disparities have compounded over decades and not only starve us from making health care, housing, infrastructure, and education accessible to all, but accelerate wealth for those who already have it. If the specialness of the American idea and the engine of capitalism don’t benefit all, people will lose trust in them. Again, our economy is not a zero-sum game; there is enough wealth created for everyone to be better off.