Forum Post: What is this "Greed" I keep hearing about?
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 9, 2011, 4:01 p.m. EST by Frank
(19)
from Washington, DC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
OED: "intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food". Selfish: "lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure".
Now who makes this determination? How much wealth, power and/or food is too much? What is lacking consideration? Are we to elect a ruling elite that decides when to cap this behavior? Why is working hard to make "too much money" a crime yet it is alright to take your neighbors money by force under the pretext that you are deserving of the fruit of his labor?
To be truly selfless one ceases to exist as an individual, you in effect become a slave. Would you marry a person who says they would sacrifice themselves for you? I wouldn't.
Every individual who makes the most out of his/her life contributes the greatest to society. Whether it be a brilliant scientist like Einstein, an inventor like Edison, or an entrepreneur like Bill Gates. Imagine if these people had decided to sacrifice their self interest, where would we be today?
Do you take better care of a friend or family member than a complete stranger? Does that make you "selfish"? Do you treat a rental car with less consideration than one you own?
True, we can "elect no ruling elite to decide to cap this behavior", and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves. Consequently, I have posted the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to support a Presidential Candidate Committee at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
There isn't a cap amount that makes someone greedy, and there is no need for an elite to decide who is or isn't. It is subjective. I and many others feel the corporate elite are greedy, and we feel we have good reasons. That's the basis under which we call them greedy.
What are the reasons? That's a long answer. Do a little research before you post questions that have already been answered a thousand times.
Anyone who has more than $500,000 in disposable income per year has "too much" wealth. Anyone who has the right to buy off a legislator with extreme campaign contributions has "too much" power. Anyone who has more food than they can eat has "too much" food. If being selfless turns you into "a slave", then that makes Jesus a slave. Do you really think that Einstein came up with the theory of relativity to get rich? Ben Franklin invented the lightning rod and never patented it because he wanted it to benefit everyone and thought he already had "enough" money. Ben Franklin = selfless slave? And I wouldn't marry a person who WOULDN'T sacrifice themselves for me and vice-versa. That is what marriage is; the sacrifice of the individual to the union. And, yes, I would take care of my friend or family member more than a stranger, but I wouldn't hoard my wealth. I would give them what I could afford. That does not meet your posted definition of "selfish" because it still shows consideration for others. Just because it's not to the level of a friend or family member doesn't mean that it lacks any. I pity you. You obviously are so self-centered and lacking in empathy that you will always be alone. But don't worry, because when you die and they put you in that box and lower you into that cold, dark ground, I will come to your funeral. But only so that I can dance on your grave.
That is your opinion. I could say 50,000 a year is too much wealth because I make a $1 a day. Then I seize your property on that basis using government. How do you feel now?
Second, you assume that this $500,000 is better spent where? It is invested, buys goods and creates just as many jobs as any other money does. Remove it and you are just shifting money around.
Please don't being religion into this because you are now talking about mysticism and having it direct our lives. That makes no sense. It was religion that kept us in the dark ages when people were persecuted for having knowledge. Knowledge that endangered the corrupt link between the Church and State that lasted for over a thousand years.
Blame the legislator not the person buying them off. That is like saying "my brother is innocent because he took a bribe".
By the way, you don't know libertarians. They are some of the nicest people I've ever met.
Fraud is the difference. This is (was) a country of laws. Leading up to the economic collapse there were and are greedy people breaking the law using fraudulent means to gain power and wealth.
You will never get rid of greed. It's a personality characteristic. However, we CAN get rid of public risk for private profit - or transferring tax dollars from one to another.
I can give you two clear examples of greed and theft backed by force of government:
Gamblers in the market who lose their asses on credit default swaps and mortgage backed securities and then expect the taxpayers to cover their losses.
Public sector employees who make a living out of bilking their neighbors.
Two different examples, both greed and theft by force of government.
Ok ready? The greed was by the bank, the mortgage companies, the rating agencies and MOST importantly the investment banks
People would put money into the investment banks, then those banks would invest in companies they knew would fail and then bet (derivatives) against those same companies they invested their customers money in! and THIS IS STILL NOT ILLEGAL! In essence, they knowingly abused their clients trust, and spent their money to make money for themselves, then used YOUR TAX MONEY to be bailed out.
We should expect people to act in their own interest. But we can change the laws to better align self-interest with the public good.
well , i see what your saying, but there were laws that stopped things like this from happening. The thing is is that people tried to have our politicians pass regulations about derivatives, but bribery and corruption in our current political system stopped this from happening. If there was a way to stop this from happening, it would have been done. The .Com bubble in the 90's the Housing bubble and this crash are all based off those corruption. We need to find the ROOT of these problems.
WHY can this corruption occur? because the central government is too large and is much larger than it was ever intended to be according to our constitution. we need radical change.
P.S. love your "marry" example. Years ago I was listening to a tape of a psychologist/marriage counselor and he talked about the "candle ceremony" where the bride has one candle, the groom the other, and together they light a "unity" candle. He says "and then what do they do? THEY BLOW OUT THEIR OWN CANDLE!" and goes on to say how horrible this is, to lose one's own individuality just because he/she is now married...
UH, the point of the marriage ceremony is two becoming one. In order for that to happen you must lose your selfishness. Not the same as individuality.
semantics. many psychologist say the act of being selfless is itself a selfish act.
a different example. My brother (died 10 years ago) had a very troubled life which impacted my parents greatly. My parents went to counseling. The counselor asked them individually the same question...."you are in a lifeboat, just you and your son, and only one can survive - do you throw yourself overboard, or your son?" My Dad answered "my son". My Mom answered "myself". The counselor said "I cannot help you as a couple". Whether my Dad's answer or my Mom's answer was selfish, who knows?
I can't say which one is selfish either, and I would not attempt to do so. I can tell you after 25+ years that it is far more than semantics, and I can point you in the direction of some very qualified and good counselors and psychologists who would challenge the counselor in your first post. I would approach the issue another way. If you are not prepared to live for someone else, or you do not trust that someone else not to take your individuality, do not marry.
I would never dare ask my wife to "live for me". In fact I would find it repulsive. My happiness is derived from seeing her grow as an individual, not be some second class appendage to myself.
Ahh, now that is one of the keys to success.
I'll joke with you that I've been married 3 times (2 wives) so I should know what I'm talking about!
I'll meet you in the middle stating that a good marriage is always about give and take. My own mindset is one of a husband, father, and grandfather who enjoys my own life without really thinking about my own life.
touche'
Good question first of all. Greed we are talking about is this desire to have more and more and finally that is the only objective in the lives of the 1%. I personaly think 99% has the capacity to devellop this greed, addiction to power and money, problem is when we are getting hungry and we don´t have chances to be greedy in that sence, we become angry, dangerous and unpredictable. I´ve been following this movement for the last 3 weeks and believe its the best thing that happened to me in quit a while. And the USA is only at the beginning of a painfull transaction period that could lead to hunger to must of your 99%, if a little more sharing is too hard for the money addict.
Fuck Ayn Rand
Give me all your money and work for me for free and I will tell you all about this greed. Mr. World Banker
Damn you and your logic.
The difficulty I have with the discussion reflects this quote "I've never seen a hospital wing named in honor of a poor person".
I've had the honor of meeting a lot of wealthy people, and I mean meeting them one on one and having real conversations, just like if you didn't know they were wealthy. Maybe my sampling is skewed, but I have never met even one who was not involved in some kind of charitable effort(s) and I don't mean writing out a $1000 check to the United Way.
To those who believe the wealthy should be taxed because they are not paying their "fair share" I pose the question: "would you rather our government tax Bill & Melinda Gates so our government can provide social services, or would you rather Bill & Melinda Gates keep their money in their $20 billion foundation and directly provide social services?"
Our government shortfall of money is NOT because they don't collect enough taxes, it's because they SPEND more than is collected.
Well said. I would trust a reputable charitable organization all day over the government to help the less fortunate. That is why this talk of ending tax deductions for charitable contributions is madness.
Its logic and reason like this that makes you dangerous. Keep it up and you will be a CEO someday. No one here wants that.
Emotions are dangerous, not logic and reason. Would you rather have a pilot at the helm of your aircraft that uses logic and reason or emotion?
If I were poor in a third world country (that typically doesn't respect private property) I would prefer the industrialist who comes in and gives me a job than the pitying looks of the international aid group that does nothing to change my life but keeps me on a bare subsistence.
If aid was so wonderful, Africa would be a wealthy continent and poverty would have vanished a long time ago. Yet the African nations that are coming out of their poverty are those embracing the free market, where the governments are less corrupt (like Kenya).
Look at "Confessions of an Economic Hit man" by John Perkins http://change-gov.com/whistle-blowers-heros-edu/ , then read his book. He was once on the side of greed... now he lives to inspire the rest of us. Banks use to be banks that help their communities grow. Now, the "Too Big To Fail" banks are manufacturing derivatives and gambling on them.
hey frank...take a breath and appreciate the sarcasm...
Sorry, I'm so used to being yelled at that I get defensive once in a while.
No problem...
Re, aid: Even if you fail, virtue and morality is in making the attempt. Apathy and self-interest are another way of saying immoral.
Reason must be balanced with emotion, as every good non-sociopath knows. Emotion drives values, values drive reason. We must know what is worth doing before we use reason to achieve it.
I would argue that reason drives values, not emotions.
My emotion says I want everything now and for free, my reason says I have to work today for I want tomorrow. Could you cite an example of a value driven by emotion? Thanks.
Your emotion is damaged, which is an identifying trait of those with your worldview.
I believe suffering is bad, because I empathize with those (not just my nearest and dearest, by the way) that I see suffering. I then use my reason to determine how I can be a positive agent in the world and reduce suffering.
I'll skip the first comment.
I believe suffering is bad as well. We just disagree on how best to alleviate it. My contention is that merely giving prolongs suffering while affording opportunity ends it.
I asked a Marxist once "if you had a million dollars how would you help the poor in your country?". He was quick to answer that he would set up a charitable foundation and give money to the poor. I asked him how that helps lift them out of poverty and what happens when your money runs out, aren't they still poor? I then said "why not open a business and hire them". To which he said "that may help them more, but you aren't doing it out of the goodness of your heart any more".
Really opened my eyes.
The point was: WHY do you believe suffering (in general, not just yours) is bad, if you're operating on pure self-interested reason? Just because you see someone else suffering and figure you might be next? That's nothing to do with morality/values, just cowardly self-interest. If you truly believe suffering, in general, is bad, and that's why you do your capitalist thing, then you're not meeting your own criteria of doing it out of pure self-interest. Pick one.
I'm not a marxist, I'm a liberal. I believe a capitalist engine is a solid way to make the world a better place for all. I don't believe that we have to CHOOSE to make ourselves subservient to market forces. They should be subservient to the greater good, and how that should be decided is this thing called democracy we're all talking about. Apparently you'd be surprised to find that the "mob" you're so concerned about would not actually abolish capitalism and vote the entire treasury into their pockets. Have some faith in your fellow humans, and let's work together for a more just world - which is not another way to say a world without competition or profit, but one where those things are not necessrily the top priorities and sole driving forces, as has been the situation since Milton Friedman and Austrian economics won the day.
Ahh, because operating on enlightened self interest helps others more than just giving up my own time.
I'll use a real life example. Some time ago when I was a liberal Democrat I spent a lot of time "helping" people. I had a neighbor who was always asking for help. She was a recent immigrant to the USA. So I helped and helped and helped. I drove her places, helped her become a U.S. citizen, tried to teach her skills and improve her English. I did free work around her house, filled out forms for jobs etc. Years of this.
While doing all of this I spent less time following my own interests, developing my abilities and improving my career. The neighbor took advantage of me, and thought I was naive (if you think this is rare come to my neck of the woods, there are a lot of people who game the system). She lives in a home much larger than mine provided by charity, works in a job where tips aren't reported to the IRS, gets huge tax refunds and drives a $35,000 SUV. I drive a 10 year old car that is falling apart, always owe the IRS and have a much more modest home. Yet she still cries poor. After I stopped helping her she found other sympathetic liberals.
What did I do? I started working for myself, developing my skills and putting in long hours. Soon people came to me asking for work. They were eager to work and move up and I afforded them every opportunity to grow.
You aren't subservient to market forces. The market force is YOU. You are the king, the consumer who decides which business fails or succeeds. You are subservient to government though, it operates by force, fail to obey it and you are jailed or fined.
I don't operate on faith, I operate on reason and experience. I'd love to have examples of where people are not self interested. Show me someone who cares more about the guy on the corner than his wife or best friend. Simply doesn't happen.
If I am king it's because I am a citizen of an ostensible democracy, which we're putting to the test. Consumerism is a form of slavery. We are told by marketing gurus and peer pressure what, among a limited set of options provided to us, based on short-term shareholder profit considerations alone, we MUST have - and told that's power, and the only power we're meant to have. Please. There is nothing noble in any of it. Just a never-ending rat race to feel fulfilled (impossible) for the sole true purpose of lining the pockets of a tiny plutocratic group which most of us will never have any chance of joining.
I know plenty of people, who, once their basic needs are met, are far more concerned about the long-term success of humanity and the ecosystem that sustains us than than the pursuit of myriad worthless conveniences and gadgets and luxuries. Nobody except you is taking extremes such as pure self-sacrifice [or pure ("enlightened" or otherwise) self-interest]. In personal behavior and governance and societal values what we're asking is to restore a balance that is currently completely out of whack.
I'm done, fare thee well.
Nobody tells me what I "must" have. If you fall for that, then you need a better education. People buy stuff that they enjoy using, try making a product and telling the consumers "they must have it". If that works, you need a job on Madison Avenue, you're a genius waiting to be discovered.
Need examples of useless gadgets please. Like what? Ipads? Computers? Washing Machines? These have all helped elevate us.