Is Greed Good? I say it is LiptonCambell: How often do you look over the news and see greed constantly being blamed for our current financial crisis? Corporate greed, greed on Wall Street, greedy speculators, etc etc. News flash. Greed has always been around. It's not some new phenomenon that jumped into existence these past few years, causing our current mess. The blame goes to the Federal Reserve for loaning cheap money to banks, allowing them to leverage themselves 30:1, and to Fannie May and Freddie Mac who bought the mortgages from banks, giving them an easy out from the obvious risks of lending. This is what caused the housing bubble. Greed or no greed, the government is behind the mess. But this thread isn't about the financial crisis. It's about the bad rep greed has. Sure, we all hate the guy who takes for himself half of the mashed potatoes at the dinner table. But without greed, we wouldn't have airlines, automobiles, light bulbs, restaurants, hydrogen fuel cells, engines, PoF. And I certainly wouldn't have this laptop to be writing this post - and you wouldn't have yours to read it. All things considered, I think greed - the desire to pursue one's self-interest - is a very good thing in our free market economy. Thoughts?  Wingsister: That is a very good point, all humans are greedy. We always want more, and most of us are raised to never be satisfied and to always do better. Greed in small doses isn't as bad as most people make it out to be.  FogofWar: It is human nature to compete. Competition drives us. Yes; greed is natural; and it creates the world in which we know it...it's not whether greed is good or bad; it's how we respond to it that is. Is it not 'greedy' for a team to try and beat another in a sporting event? So really; is it greedy for an NHL team to win the Stanley Cup?? Does that make it bad? Hell no; sports often show both sides of greed; the destructive side that creates bad sportsmanship and sore losers; who intentionally aim to hurt other players....but it also shows us the healthy side of competition; players like Steve Yzerman; who, despite 'greedily' winning the Stanley Cup three times; showed his spirit was always rooted in great sportsmanship; and dedication to the game. He always respected the other players; and showed exactly how competition can better us. ...and on the history note; yes; greed is not some new phenomena....the first war ever documented was between two states; Umma and Lagash around 2500 BCE...it was fought over farmland that Umma wanted. Lagash succeeded in defeated Umma and keeping the land.  †Jack☠OfHearts†™: yes true greed isn't a new thing...what is new to mankind? You might be using "greed" loosely. I wouldn't agree that it is a good thing. Greed isn't an entity by itself, it has other problems attached to it; thievery, disloyalty, betrayal, lies... Its not something that you get up and say 'hey I want something good for myself because I deserve it'..sometimes and most times its taking from someone's share, taking what someone else has and denying another person of something. Maybe it's a capitalist view that its ok to be greedy to be 'successful' at anyone's expense.. not directed to anyone  †Jack☠OfHearts†™: and fogofwar "greedy" wouldn't be the proper word there, as greedy is desiring something more than is required more than is needed..sports is 'competition to win between a group/groups with fair play' not in itself "greed"
 BrennaEckel: Well put JackOfHearts. Yes, greed has been a factor in actualizing many technological advances; however, I'm not entirely sure we are benefited by such luxuries. I would trade my laptop in a second for serenity... I should elaborate. What I mean is that, I think with all of the technology and day to day activity in our face constantly (ie: advertising, tv, exaggerated news tragedies, cell phones), there is very little quiet time for the mind. There is a constant pressure for bigger and better things, and I feel like it gets to be excessive. A cruder joke, a filthier rap song, better movie graphics... Is anyone else tormented by the constant buzzing? Perhaps, I went a bit off topic... StephanosPrimus: I think there's a huge difference between greed and desire. There's certainly nothing wrong with wanting something, but when that desire becomes greed, nothing good ever comes of it. StephanosPrimus: Desire is "I want this". Greed is "I *have* to have this, whatever the cost". Can you feel the difference? Desire is flexible. Your goal can change, depending on circumstances. Greed will sacrifice anything and everything... nothing is sacred. Lose a best friend, a spouse, a child, your very soul... whatever. Any loss is "worth it" as long as you end up with what you absolutely *have* to possess. LiptonCambell: Im not convinced those are the actual defined differences in those words, but thanks for the clarity. StephanosPrimus: Noun: desire 1. The feeling that accompanies an unsatisfied state 2. An inclination to want things "a man of many desires" 3. Something that is desired Verb: desire 1. Feel or have a desire for; want strongly 2. Expect and wish 3. Express a desire for *******-*******-*******-*******-*******-*******-*******-*******-*******-- Noun: greed 1. Excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves 2. Reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins) LiptonCambell: Lol I guess I just got told. And also......you live in my city? Lol the internet keeps getting smaller and smaller  Metaverseguy: Unregulated greed is bad. When you think of greed you might be thinking of people like Warren Buffett or Bill Gates who create jobs and become wealthy. There are also many cases of people like Bernie Madoff and Enron that take advantage of people for personal gain. Sure when Capitalism was thought up by Adam Smith he thought it would help boost the economy and motivate people, but the greed that Donald Trump has when he builds a hotel is very similar to the greed that a bank robber has when he threatens a woman with her life at a bank for thousands of dollars.  StuckInTheSixties: I think perhaps a person becomes greedy when they have some understanding of ethics, or "fair play" (for lack of a better term), and willfully choose to ignore it in their pursuit of profit. For instance, if a person comes up with a great idea, or more efficient ways to do things, or is simply a hard worker, and excells over the competition, even to the point of becoming extremely wealthy, I don't see that as being greedy. However, if that same person (legally or not) bribes a lawmaker to act in his behalf so that he gains government contracts, gains a tax loophole, etc. I see that as being greedy. If auto company accountants figure out that it's cheaper to pay off a small number of personal injury/death lawsuits, rather than fixing the auto's defect causing them, that's greedy. Here's the thing about greed: It's very difficult, or impossible, to make broad definitions of what it is, but it's pretty easy to come up with examples of it. StuckInTheSixties: Here's an example of greed: During the phenomenonal rise of Microsoft, the company would have "scouts" searching, making contact with unknown, underemployed software engineers with good ideas ... ideas that if properly developed, would be significantly competitive against Microsoft products. They would offer that semi-starving engineer a substantial amount of money for the idea, an "all-or-nothing" proposition, and after acquiring ALL of the rights to the idea, they would simply bury it. Legally, of course, that idea would be theirs to do with as they see fit. But there would be an accounting assessment: they would make more money by keeping the consuming public from this new improved idea and keeping them continuing to consume the older, lesser idea. The consumer takes it on the chin. How about if the idea of "eminent domain" is corrupted for someone's gain? Eminent domain is the idea that the state (or the community) can confiscate your property against your wishes and pay you a fair value for it if the community as a whole will benefit. For instance, if your property happens to be right were they need to build a new freeway, or form a new park, you don't have the right to impede that by refusing to sell when it would be of a great benefit to so many people. It seems a little harsh, but reasonable. However, what about when a developer wants your property simply for a profit-making venture, uses his assets to help elect a politician, who then proposes the eminent domain procedure so that in the process of helping his developer buddy get your property, additional taxes will be generated for the community when Mr. Developer become wealthy? LiptonCambell: >>>Unregulated greed is bad. I say regulations are the greater evil in this matter. the kinds of issues sixity brings up below, of government courrption in relation to businesses, such things would not exist if there were no regulations. The moment someone attempts to 'make the playing feild fair', it clearly is an issue of government attempting to get consumers to buy a product they wouldn't noramlly buy otherwise. If you regulate a business, people will find or create loopholes to give them an advantage over another business- after all, that is the purpose of these regulations anyways. So to say that we need more regulations is simply ignoring both the effect and the intent regulations have on industry. Regulations lead to unfair businesses because regulations are literally an attempt to make it unfair. >>>but the greed that Donald Trump has when he builds a hotel is very similar to the greed that a bank robber has when he threatens a woman with her life at a bank for thousands of dollars. Hogwash. The kinds of laws filed against corportations, demanding that businesspeople pay to help their competitors compete, under threat of having your property stolen and sold, is far greater evil. I find it funny that your solution for something "similar" to theft is to steal from people. ---- >>>However, if that same person (legally or not) bribes a lawmaker to act in his behalf so that he gains government contracts, gains a tax loophole, etc. I see that as being greedy. Ah, but doesn't this entirely depend on your defination of bribe? Lets be honest here- industries certainly have a right to represent themselves when it comes to laws and legilature. >>>they would make more money by keeping the consuming public from this new improved idea and keeping them continuing to consume the older, lesser idea. Like you said- its theirs to do with as they please. Whats the problem? The people who sold choose to sell, the people who bought choose to buy. Everyone is working completely in a voluntary fashion. What alterative do you suggest? Raiding Microsofts memeory banks? Outlawing these small businesses from making their own decisions? I agree the present is not ideal, but compared to the alteratives, its quite a bit more free- and I say freedom trumps the inconvience of letting businesses run in their own best interest. StephanosPrimus: Let's keep it as simple as possible: greed is defined as excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves. If that can be accomplished without hurting, devaluing, or dishonouring anyone in the process, then it's fine... if not, it can hardly be considered positive or beneficial to anyone but the greedy perpetrator. LiptonCambell: >>>If that can be accomplished without hurting, devaluing, or dishonouring anyone in the process, then it's fine... if not, it can hardly be considered positive or beneficial to anyone but the greedy perpetrator. Huh? No devaluing or dishonoring anyone? That's a little broad. If my success drives out other businesses, but my intention is not dominance, does that mean I'm greedy without acting greedy? I think you're focusing too much on intent rather than effect. StephanosPrimus: Not at all. It's a big market out there, and it's distinctly possible to make plenty of money without hurting, devaluing, or dishonouring anyone. Putting someone out of business in the honest and ethical process of growing your own business is known as capitalism. Doing it when you know that you neither need nor deserve the money is greedy. There is a difference. StuckInTheSixties: When you have the ability to work the politics to your advantage, just on the basis of who you know, I can't see any argument for the ethics of that. It's basic unfairness. It's like a competition where your opponent is shackled by rules you don't have yourself. Lipton, what's your thoughts about monopoly? LiptonCambell: >>>Not at all. Lol Excellent. Again, just seeking clarity on your opinion- and now understanding, I can't disagree. >>>It's like a competition where your opponent is shackled by rules you don't have yourself. Yes, but my argument is the regulations to make things fair have the unintended consequences of making things further unfair. That by accepting that the government may "balance" competition for our own good, we open the door- and doing further "balancing" will only bring more harm. >>>Lipton, what's your thoughts about monopoly? I think it can only exist if either a business succeeds in attracting enough public support, or is protected by the government. StuckInTheSixties: Lipton, I need some clarification. It would appear that your perception about greed is sort of Darwinesque in a fundamentalist way. It's as if you are saying, "If someone is able to make a profit, just the fact that they made it, regardless of the means of making it, proves that they are simply better at making that profit than the person that didn't make it." Fundamentally, that's true. But does that make it "good" (your word)? Does that mean they DESERVE that profit, regardless of the means they used to obtain it? LiptonCambell: >>>Does that mean they DESERVE that profit, regardless of the means they used to obtain it? I think its petty for people to shell out who does and does not "deserve" profit. You have your opportunity to vote- with your dollar- who "deserves" to succeed and who does not. I don't like McDonalds- their burgers are bland, and I'd rather see Wendys or the local burger joint Harrys succeed- so I do business with them. I do not hold the ideal that, since I feel one business is superior to another in product, customer service, treatment of employees, ect ect, that I should intitate force to force them to change. And announcing that the voluntary trade between people must be "corrected" because one business does not "deserve" the money their customers feel they do, again, is petty. Deciding who does and does not deserve profit is simply the application of force on people who only wish to co-operate with their fellow man. If Walmart succeeds, they did so out of the voluntary consent of their consumers- and if Walmart succeeds through ill-gotten means, I believe it is solely and entirely because people drove the government to meddle in issues it had no place doing, in the seemingly moral but ultimately mistaken and poorly thought goal of "fairness". As I've said before- I do not see my stance as ideal. I simply see voluntary co-operation to be vastly superior to the inituation of force. | Philosophy Chat Room 8 People Chatting Similar Conversations |