Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
NYT Asks: "Could Greed Be Good?"
ABC's John Stossel is probably the most widely-recognized, most be-mustached libertarian out there. He sneaks all kinds of Econ 101 and pro-freedom lessons into his 20/20 segments and special. The Ur-episode is the one in which he asks, with faux shock, after examining the benefits of capitalism: "Could greed be good?"
It seems that The New York Times is asking itself the same question.
In light a dismal fiscal future, the Times has brought in new board members, "two exceptional individuals," in the words of Times chairman Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., one from Wal-Mart and one from Chevron. The New York Sun takes a look at the few choice words from the editorial board on Wal-Mart in the past:
One, Dawn Lepore, served as a director of Wal-Mart from 2001 to 2004. While Ms. Lepore was serving as a Wal-Mart director, the Times was denouncing Wal-Mart for a series of supposed sins. A November 15, 2003, editorial thundered, "This Wal-Martization of the work force, to which other low-cost, low-pay stores also contribute, threatens to push many Americans into poverty. The first step in countering it is to enforce the law. The government must act more vigorously, and more quickly, when Wal-Mart uses illegal tactics to block union organizing. And Wal-Mart must be made to pay if it exploits undocumented workers." It went on, "Wal-Mart likes to wrap itself in American values. It should be reminded that one of those is paying workers enough to give their families a decent life."
An April 11, 2004, editorial, also written while Ms. Lepore was serving on the Wal-Mart board, warned, "the entry of such an especially tight-fisted employer in a community compels competitors to whittle at their own labor costs. That translates into lost jobs and smaller paychecks for everyone."
Say it with me (and John Stossel) now: Could greed be good?
Via American Thinker
Cross-posted at reason.tv
highnumber|2.15.08 @ 10:50AM|#
I recall watching Stossel in the classroom in middle school. Was that part of the Reagan effect?
Wasted Carbon|2.15.08 @ 11:10AM|#
Eric Dondero has a much more libertarian moustache! Stossel is a left wing libertarian! He works for the MSM! He never picked up Ron Pauls dry cleaning!
|2.15.08 @ 11:13AM|#
David Mills of the RationalResponders.com site kind of looks
like Dondero with a bad douchey fro.
I think I'm gonna go as Dondero next Halloween, to scare all the
kiddies. I just hope I don't get maced for sporting the
molesterstache.
Neu Mejican|2.15.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Greed:
Some quick dictionary definitions:
excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or
possessions.
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)
a (too) great desire for food, money etc
So, given that all of these definitions seem to center on the
"excessiveness" of the desire, then by definition greed is not
good, although a desire for more wealth may be. To count as greed,
the desire needs to have a negative valance.
It is like comparing gluttony to hunger.
Bingo|2.15.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Neu Mejican:
It is like comparing gluttony to hunger.
I don't think that's an accurate analogy. The reason being is that
greed is actually a net producer as opposed to gluttony which ends
up consuming without giving anything in return.
A more accurate representation might be one of those birds that
eats lots of berries and in turn shits out the seeds causing more
trees to grow and more berries to exist.
Neu Mejican|2.15.08 @ 11:42AM|#
greed is actually a net producer as opposed to gluttony
which ends up consuming without giving anything in
return.
That fall flat.
Gluttony is consumption.
Consumption requires production.
Greed is acquisition.
Acquisition requires production.
Your claim is that the greed is good because it increases
production. So does gluttony.
I would say that gluttony is just a sub-species of greed...greed
for food.
Neu Mejican|2.15.08 @ 11:45AM|#
To be clear.
The collateral good that is created by greed does not make the
greed itself a good.
A murder in a corn field may lead to a better corn crop the next
season as the body feeds the soil. That doesn't make the murder a
good even if the extra corn saves more than one life...yadda
yadda.
Greed by definition has a negative valance.
If it is not negative, you are talking about something other than
greed.
|2.15.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Andrew Carnegie was a rapaciously greedy industrialist who
donated more than 2500 libraries to communities around the
world.
He also provided jobs for thousands of people, and stimulated the
economy, creating, in turn, thousands of other jobs for people who
provided goods and services for his employees. What if he had said,
"well, I've got 'enough' now, I'm going to the beach."
Bingo|2.15.08 @ 11:54AM|#
NM: I take it you didn't watch the video. Truly greedy people
will try to use their assets in order to get more assets as they
are never satisfied. Using their assets to try to get richer has an
effect of making other people richer in the process. You are right
in that gluttony has no effect of producing assets, its simply
consuming wealth, not trying to acquire it.
While a glutton might eat all of his corn, a greedy person will
save some and plant it to have more in the future. The desire to
acquire more will be the driving factor, not the desire to consume
more.
As a note most of those people in the video were complete pricks
and I wouldn't want to work for one.
Sam Grove|2.15.08 @ 11:56AM|#
The problems is that the left uses 'greed' as a language weapon
in their war on profit making.
To them, the possession of wealth is evidence of 'greed' regardless
of how or why it was acquired.
Neu Mejican|2.15.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Sam Grove,
Indeed.
I am arguing that the use of the word "greed" to indicate a
virtuous desire to improve one's lot and gain assets is a
distortion of the word's connotation. I understand the motivation
to change the words connotation, but I find the negative valance to
provide a valuable distinction.
On the other side, however, the use of the word "greed" to describe
a healthy desire to improve one's lot and gain more assets is
disingenuous.
Neu Mejican|2.15.08 @ 12:07PM|#
For the record,
Sam Grove uses the word "left" as a language weapon...I think he
should use "pinko."
=/;^)
the innominate one|2.15.08 @ 12:07PM|#
ABC's John Stossel is probably the most widely-recognized,
most be-mustached libertarian out there.
Which is too bad, because he's an intellectual lightweight and a
tool.
|2.15.08 @ 12:09PM|#
You are right in that gluttony has no effect of producing
assets, its simply consuming wealth, not trying to acquire
it.
It's an imperfect analogy, as all analogies are, but let us
consider the poster child of gluttonous wealth consumption, Paris
Hilton.
Ms Hilton has no aptitude of which I am aware for creating wealth
on her own behalf (being paid to show up at parties doesn't count).
However, her gluttonous consumption of the wealth of previous
generations of Hiltons creates wealth for rapaciously greedy
dressmakers, cobblers, and makers of specialty distilled spirits,
not to mention the manufacturers and repairers of Bentley
automobiles. Her wealth is transferred to energetic, innovative,
individuals who are able to put it to better (that is, their own)
uses.
Neu Mejican|2.15.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Bingo,
While a glutton might eat all of his corn, a greedy person will
save some and plant it to have more in the future.
A glutton will do just as much to shore up his supply of products
to consume as a greedy person will do to shore up his sources of
increasing assets.
They have the same collateral effects.
Neu Mejican|2.15.08 @ 12:12PM|#
For a more tangential take on this.
Greed is bad for the person who is greedy, even if it is good for
others.
In the same sense that being gullible is not good for you, but may
benefit others, being greedy is not good for you, but may benefit
others.
That does not make being gullible a virtue.
And likewise, being greedy is not a virtue.
|2.15.08 @ 12:14PM|#
I believe in the free market but I don't believe in union-busting. Wal-Mart has improved living conditions for tens of millions of Americans, but it's also engaged in union-busting and hiring of illegal aliens employ at exploitation wages, and Wal-Mart executives under pressure to deliver outstanding results have adjusted time clocks, underpaid employees, etc., etc. Big Wally's got a few warts.
Neu Mejican|2.15.08 @ 12:15PM|#
Alan V,
And were those bad behaviors the result of greed rather than a
healthy desire to improve one's lot and increase assets?
Seems like a good way to characterize the motivation to me.
Neu Mejican|2.15.08 @ 12:17PM|#
he's an intellectual lightweight and a tool
Let's not forget disingenuous and dishonest.
Neu Mejican|2.15.08 @ 12:27PM|#
metonymy is a powerful trope in political discourse.
To characterize the whole of your opposition by referring to them
with the label of a part of opposition associated with negative
feelings is a powerful way to discredit the larger group.
So, for instance, when Sam Grove says the left is at war with
profit making, he is using the fact that those who are at war with
profit making can be described as on the left to indite all of
those on the left, whether or not they are part of the war on
profit.
Likewise, those who use the term "greed" to describe legitimate
activities designed to increase profits are using metonymy to
attach the negative valance of the term to the legitimate
activity.
Bingo|2.15.08 @ 12:28PM|#
NM: Are you unable to discuss the differences between the desire
to acquire and the desire to consume without assigning moral values
to them? I'm halfway trolling here, but calling something a
"virtue" or "not a virtue" when talking about net effects seems a
little disingenuous, no?
In any case, many very very rich people are quite frugal when it
comes to spending money on themselves. Warren Buffet drove a
Lincoln Towncar as his primary automobile until very recently. Most
of them have lots of money but only use it in ways that will make
them more money (in other words: investing). Investing is the
quickest way to make more money, not buying TVs, fancy cars, or
huge houses. It would seem to me that investing is an act of greed,
not an act of charity and certainly not an act of gluttony.
Neu Mejican|2.15.08 @ 12:35PM|#
Bingo,
When the discussion is framed with the question
"Could greed be good?"
You are in the realm of discussing the moral value of greed.
Your description of Warren Buffet does not sound like a description
of greed.
As for the greed/gluttony distinction...
It is, of course, meaningful. Greed is the less restrictive term,
but the terms seem to have very similar collateral benefits (as P
Brooks describes well).
Maybe the term greed needs to be restricted to activities that
could be considered "hording" whereby the wealth is not used to its
fullest potential because the greedy person is hording it. They may
be investing enough to keep the stream of assets coming, but
under-utilizing the assets due to greed...
Just blathering at this point, btw.
Neu Mejican|2.15.08 @ 12:39PM|#
Bingo,
calling something a "virtue" or "not a virtue" when talking
about net effects seems a little disingenuous, no?
No more disingenuous than trying to polish the stain off of a vice
by pointing to the collateral benefits of the vice.
Bingo|2.15.08 @ 12:45PM|#
Yeah coffee is needed here too, hahaha.
Yes, I see what you're saying about hoarding, but I don't know if
that falls under the definition of greedy. At that point, aren't
you satisfied with your wealth and therefore unconcerned with
getting more? As an example, in the video the one guy who was worth
8 figures and founded a billion dollar microchip company but still
worked 15 hours days. Obviously he could retire and live how he
wanted but he is so greedy he keeps working and trying to make more
money.
Also I don't think greed and gluttony are mutually exclusive
concepts, you can be greedy by wanting to acquire more assets and
then gluttonously consuming them at the same time.
You can also be gluttonous without being greedy. Think of a
trust-fund baby who has no desire but to spend the $100,000-a-year
his rich uncle left him. No desire to start a business or acquire
more, he's satisfied with his assets and merely wants to consume as
much as he can.
Mean Old Frisco|2.15.08 @ 12:45PM|#
Yet another drive to recast "greed" as "a good thing"?
Is greed still good if it involves lowballing employee wages to the
point that (too) many employees are on the government welfare dole,
drawing tax dollars in the form of food stamps, rent and utility
bill assistance, medical assistance, daycare subsidies...etc?
It reads like fun-house mirrored socialism to me. The taxpayers are
conned into underwriting labor costs for wildly profitable corps
that are greedily seeking to keep their profits private while
socializing as many of their expenses as can be manage.
Neu Mejican|2.15.08 @ 12:55PM|#
Bingo,
re:Hording/hoarding...
Isn't gluttony the excessive desire to acquire consumption history
assets, or something, and therefore a form of greed?
Clearly the two terms are not entirely pleonastic, only closely
related.
Kinda like hording and hoarding.
Both involve gathering things together, but one is the correct term
for what I meant (hoarding) and the other a related term that my
spell checker recognized...
the innominate one|2.15.08 @ 12:59PM|#
highnumber:
that was probably before Stossel reformed and recanted his
liberalism
Mike Laursen|2.15.08 @ 1:09PM|#
The taxpayers are conned into underwriting labor costs for
wildly profitable corps that are greedily seeking to keep their
profits private while socializing as many of their expenses as can
be manage.
But doesn't the world make more sense if businesses are in the
business of producing products and hiring people at whatever wage
level makes sense for their business models, and it is the larger
society's concern to provide a safety net for the poor?
We've evolved this system where we expect businesses to nurture
their employees. It's a natural conflict of interest -- employers
ultimately view employees as a cost of doing business.
As a libertarian, I'd like to see a world where society voluntarily
takes care of poor people. Even so, I think government-provided
safety net makes much more sense than shoving the problem off onto
employers.
Mike Laursen|2.15.08 @ 1:15PM|#
I should have said: "We've evolved this system where we expect
low-margin businesses to nurture unskilled employees."
Higher-margin businesses that hire skilled employees usually offer
great benefits. Even in this case, it's weird for one's health
insurance to be tied to one's employment. It would make more sense
if the employee were paid a bit more, and bought his or her own
insurance policy that he or she could keep for life.
|2.15.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Companies like Wal-mart will never treat their employees as
valuable until they cannot find anyone else willing to work for the
wages they pay. We have a glut of labor in this world. As long as
we have more laborers than jobs, they can low-ball all they want.
But for the same reason, taxpayers should not be financially
responsible for people who don't make what some people think they
should make.
Maybe people should stop having kids they can't afford. Then, if
they are poor, they only have to worry about themselves. They can
work as many jobs as they want and not have to worry about daycare
or healthcare except for themselves. They can work and still go to
school to increase their chances at a better paying job, then have
kids once they've improved their own situation. People's poor
decisions are no one else's responsibility.
|2.15.08 @ 1:58PM|#
So, given that all of these definitions seem to center on
the "excessiveness" of the desire, then by definition greed is not
good, although a desire for more wealth may be. To count as greed,
the desire needs to have a negative valance.
It is like comparing gluttony to hunger.
Gee, Neu Mejican, some liberals working at a dictionary-publisher
say "this here is the meaning of greed", and that's it, case
closed?
If the defined New Mexico as "a useless sparsely populated
hellhole" would you nod your head and say, "yup, that must be true,
cause aome authority figure said it -- time to ignore the evidence
of my eyes that I live in a beautiful state."
|2.15.08 @ 1:59PM|#
People's poor decisions are no one else's
responsibility.
Etch that in stone and put a spotlight on it.
|2.15.08 @ 2:08PM|#
prolefeed - Dictionaries are pretty good at documenting actual
usage and meaning.
Neu Mejican - Is a 1200 sq ft home greedy whne you can easily raise
a brood of six with 1000 sq ft?
2000 sq ft?
10,000 sq ft?
Is a Monet greedy when you can get the print for $20.00?
We know what greed is. Somebody else's sin.
|2.15.08 @ 2:24PM|#
Speaking of greed is good i got an e-mail form an Ex who is
French and is a socialist....you guys are all libertarians...how do
i respond to this while trying to convince a socialist that she is
wrong and that free markets are good?
here is the letter:
You might be interested in the theories of Serge Latouche,
french economist about the market and growth as a weapon of mass
destruction. You care about environment, the beautiful land of
Washington State... I'm sure you have some theories about that, and
you probably have made the link between capitalism and earth
slaughter early. He made the link in the '70.
I have no idea who Latouche is...my guess is he is the French
version of (population bomb, i am wrong about everything)
Erlich
|2.15.08 @ 2:31PM|#
As I understand it, greed is a moral shortcoming.
However, in a capitalist system the societal effects of
legal greedy behavior, by creating wealth, are a net positive.
Greedy people, by selfishly increasing their wealth, expand the
economy thus increasing happiness for overall society.
Therefore greed is a sin, but it is also good.
|2.15.08 @ 2:38PM|#
joshua corning -
Here
is a short piece of his thinking. Since you're a regular around
here, I imagine you know the libertarian responses.
Internet + Google = Appearing smart.
Mike Laursen|2.15.08 @ 2:39PM|#
how do i respond to this while trying to convince a
socialist that she is wrong and that free markets are
good?
Who cares. Just get down on your knees every morning and thank the
Good Lord that she's your Ex and you don't have to listen to this
type of ranting every day.
|2.15.08 @ 3:36PM|#
One further irony. The candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination endorsed by the New York Times served on Wal-mart's board of directors from 1986 until 1992.
Gilbert Martin|2.15.08 @ 3:38PM|#
"It reads like fun-house mirrored socialism to me. The taxpayers
are conned into underwriting labor costs for wildly profitable
corps that are greedily seeking to keep their profits private while
socializing as many of their expenses as can be manage."
There is a con going on all right, but it's not Wal-Mart or the
other corporations doing it.
Wal-Mart didn't create those social programs that are costing
taxpayers money - the politicians did.
It wasn't Wal-Mart that dreamed up the idea that everyone is
"entitled" to all sorts of things regardless of whether they can
pay for them or not and the that the taxpayers should be required
to provide them - the politicians did.
Wal-Mart isn't "socializing" it's expenses because none of those
things were ever legitimately it's expenses to begin with - just as
they aren't legitimately the taxpayers expenses.
Whether the taxpayers pay for social programs directly or
indirectly by the government making Wal-Mart pay for them (which
will then raise it's prices to all it's customers to cover it)
makes no differnce. It's still government mandating charity in
either case. And it's something that government never had any
legitimate Constitutional authority to do in the first place.
|2.15.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Andrew Carnegie was a rapaciously greedy industrialist
He was? I don't think that's true, as ...who donated more than
2500 libraries to communities around the world.
If he was greedy, he would not have made those donations. Or,
rather, he was not entirely greedy, and sometimes did things out of
an impulse that are the polar opposite of greed, charity.
Greed is a term used to describe the elevation of ordinary
self-interest to a pathology. No, it is not good to elevate
natural, universal impluses to a pathological level, whether we're
talking about the sex drive, hunger, or the profit motive. It
requires that one distort or eliminate other natural, normal
drives, leaving one an incomplete person, and therefore more likely
to harm others.
|2.15.08 @ 4:40PM|#
J sub D,
Part of the capitalist system is a system of laws and practices
that prevent people from pursuing their greed to the detriment of
others, and compel them to attenuate their greedy impulses. Laws
against fraud and theft, for example. Taxes for public goods.
|2.15.08 @ 4:54PM|#
Part of the capitalist system is a system of laws and
practices that prevent people from pursuing their greed to the
detriment of others, and compel them to attenuate their greedy
impulses. Laws against fraud and theft, for example. Taxes for
public goods.
joe -
Thanks. I wondered why I referred to "legal greedy behavior", as
opposed to "fraud and theft". Sheesh.
highnumber|2.15.08 @ 8:00PM|#
the innominate one,
Just as well, since I can't remember a bit about the shows we
watched in class.
I have an urge to ask if you have a nickname, but I can't bring
myself to do it.
|2.15.08 @ 8:51PM|#
You might be interested in the theories of Serge Latouche,
french economist about the market and growth as a weapon of mass
destruction.
A.) He's not much of an economist. His words read as if a biologist
lamented at the existence of life.
You care about environment, the beautiful land of Washington
State... I'm sure you have some theories about that, and you
probably have made the link between capitalism and earth slaughter
early. He made the link in the '70.
He begs the question. He assumes capitalism is a form of
depredation in order to link it to the "depredation" of the earth.
Depredation of the earth has more to do with a Tragedy of the
Commons scenario than with free markets, and such scenario is more
present in anti-capitalist societies than in capitalist societies
(i.e. private property owners and free markets).
|2.15.08 @ 9:00PM|#
Neu,
The collateral good that is created by greed does not make the
greed itself a good.
Well, greed is not a good, it is a behavior.
A murder in a corn field may lead to a better corn crop the
next season as the body feeds the soil...
Well, anybody who argues that is arguing from the broken window
fallacy, so your criticism of such argument is redundant. Also, a
murder is not the product of a greedy mind, but of an irrational
mind - true greed is rational.
Greed by definition has a negative [b]alance.
"By definition"? Which definition? The one you gave before? Why
would it have a "negative balance"? Against what? Compared to what?
Parting from where?
|2.15.08 @ 9:08PM|#
Greed is a term used to describe the elevation of ordinary
self-interest to a pathology.
What is the "ordinary" self interest? Where is the line, the
threshold between ordinary and "greed" (pathology)? Point is, what
is "ordinary self interest" and "pathology" is in the eye of the
beholder (especially if the beholder is a Marxian). Can you say
without risk of being prejudiced if my baseball card hording is
"pathological", or the result of "ordinary self interest"?
What I believe is happening is that by arguing from envy, Marxians
call "greed" what is simply productivity. A productive person will
be able to receive more compensation for his or her services/goods
than a less productive person. For some reason, a person that
pursues economic accumulation by way of producing goods or services
that people want is called "greedy" by the Marxians. This is pure
envy, which is in my mind the worst of all sins, since it makes a
person irrational and dumb.
Neu Mejican|2.15.08 @ 10:29PM|#
Francisco Torres,
Greed by definition has a negative [b]alance.
The word is valence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valency_%28linguistics%29
I was typing without coffee.
prolefeed.
Some liberal dictionary editor?
That's pure comedy gold.
Neu Mejican|2.15.08 @ 10:46PM|#
JsubD,
Someone else's sin?
I think that the idea that a normal process, desire, aspect of
human nature taken to excess can be a vice is pretty
common-sensical. So the Monet or the 12,000 square foot house are
not definitional to the concept of greed. Even though they might be
used as evidence in specific cases.
It seems that greed is more about the why the what.
c.f., the thread on terrorism.
Neu Mejican|2.15.08 @ 10:50PM|#
Francisco Torres,
true greed is rational
I would say that once it reaches the level of greed it is
irrational...see my discussion of the valence of the term
above.
You are talking about something other than greed.
prolefeed,
If the defined New Mexico as "a useless sparsely populated
hellhole" would you nod your head and say, "yup,...
No.
I would say, how long were you in Hobbes?
Neu Mejican|2.15.08 @ 10:59PM|#
Crap...too little coffee this morning.
Too much beer tonight.
It seems that greed is more about the why than the what.
Mike Laursen|2.16.08 @ 11:03AM|#
It seems that greed is more about the why the
what.
Would you agree that it's better that our laws are concerned with
what a person does rather than getting into the whys of what he
does?
Neu Mejican|2.16.08 @ 11:14AM|#
Francisco Torres,
Here's a better reference to explain what I mean by the negative
valence of the term greed...
"greed"http://polorovereto.unitn.it/~colombetti/docs/GC_AppraisingValence05.pdf
It should be noted that, in contrast to chemical valence, which
is only positive, psychological valence or a psychological valence
may be either positive (attracting) or negative
(repelling)...[e]vents, objects, and situations may possess
positive and negative valence; that is, they may possess intrinsic
attractiveness or aversiveness' (p. 207).
Negative mental factors (anger, attachment [LETS ADD "GREED")
disturb the mind and should be avoided; emotions such as
loving-kindness and wishing well for other beings should be
cultivated.This distinction is primarily ethical, but is at the
same time intertwined with the consideration that virtuous emotions
improve one's overall well-being, whereas non-virtuous ones disrupt
it. Positive, virtuous emotions are wholesome, and negative,
non-virtuous ones are unwholesome.
Neu Mejican|2.16.08 @ 11:16AM|#
Mike Laursen,
Yes, for the most part, I would agree.
But I think the concept of mitigating circumstances has an
intrinsic element of "why."
Neu Mejican|2.16.08 @ 11:18AM|#
The difference between manslaughter and murder would include an
element of why as well.
As does the difference between negligence and vandalism,
perhaps.
And I think those are proper distinctions.
Neu Mejican|2.16.08 @ 11:21AM|#
By the way,
I don't know that there is any reason for their to be laws related
to greed. Being greedy may have a negative valence, but it isn't
something that should be outlawed given that the negative aspects
are internal to the greedy person. I can't think of any laws
related to greed in the real world. Can you?
Neu Mejican|2.16.08 @ 11:26AM|#
Legal uses of why, continued:
Self-defense
Defence of others
Sexual Assault vs. S&M play
Mike Laursen|2.16.08 @ 3:28PM|#
I can't think of any laws related to greed in the real
world. Can you?
No, but there are people who would like there to be, which is why
we're talking about it on this political blog.
|2.16.08 @ 4:24PM|#
Nick you are right on. People act as though labor shouldn't be
affected by the laws of supply and demand, even though every other
resource on the planet is.
We just don't need a bunch of people who aren't skilled at anything
but scratching their own asses, but we have that anyway, and they
all expect to make great money.
I say the same thing about people having kids they can't afford.
You know if they quit doing it, poverty would disappear in a single
generation.
|2.16.08 @ 4:29PM|#
It should be noted that, in contrast to chemical valence,
which is only positive[...]
Off to a bad start...
psychological valence or a psychological valence may be either
positive (attracting) or negative (repelling)...[e]vents, objects,
and situations may possess positive and negative valence; that is,
they may possess intrinsic attractiveness or aversiveness' (p.
207).
Reads like someone's opinion, Neu.
Negative mental factors (anger, attachment [LETS ADD
"GREED") [Let "us" add "Greed"?? Why??] disturb the mind
and should be avoided; emotions such as loving-kindness and wishing
well for other beings should be cultivated.This distinction is
primarily ethical, but is at the same time intertwined with the
consideration that virtuous emotions improve one's overall
well-being, whereas non-virtuous ones disrupt it. Positive,
virtuous emotions are wholesome, and negative, non-virtuous ones
are unwholesome.
Give me a break... Next you'll want me to read Dianetics.
|2.16.08 @ 5:05PM|#
Francesco Torres,
As with any other human pathology, it's impossible to draw a line
about when a drive becomes pathological without looking at the
specifics. We know there is social drinking, and alcoholism; yet
it's impossible to cite a bright line of when the one turns into
the other.
And while you might be right about Marxists, very few people in
this country are Marxists, while most would recognize that there is
something called "greed," and that it is a bad thing. Even most
people who despise Marxism.
So simply shooting down what you think the Marxists think about
greed, or noting that greed cannot be tested for like lead, doesn't
eliminate the fact that greed exists.
|2.16.08 @ 5:08PM|#
J sub D,
I didn't think my point was that obscure, but I guess I have to lay
it out. Sheesh.
The fact that there are laws necessary to restrain people motivated
by greed within the capitalist system means that capitalist
exchange is not, by itself, enough to make greed harmless.
|2.16.08 @ 6:02PM|#
As with any other human pathology, it's impossible to draw a
line about when a drive becomes pathological without looking at the
specifics.
Joe, you are begging the question - what makes YOU think, first of
all, that "greed" is a pathology? This is why I asked you the
question: who decides what is acceptable and what is not when it
comes to accumulating wealth? You? Me? Where do you draw the line,
and how do you avoid being subjective when establishing that
line?
very few people in this country are Marxists, while most would
recognize that there is something called "greed," and that it is a
bad thing.
I would not presume to know what most people think, Joe, and it is
irrelevant to the extreme - the Ad Populum argument does not
stand.
My argument is that people use the word "greed" in a negative way
to refer to people's productivity or success in creating
wealth.
|2.16.08 @ 6:13PM|#
Joe, you are begging the question - what makes YOU think,
first of all, that "greed" is a pathology?
Because of its definition and standard usage. Francisco, is this a
language thing? Are you just not familiar with how the word is
commonly used, and how its definition and connotation differ from
"self-interest" or "the profit motive?"
who decides what is acceptable The same people who decide
the difference between gluttony and hunger; every single one of us,
depending on the situation.
Where do you draw the line, and how do you avoid being
subjective when establishing that line? You don't avoid being
subjective. While the difference between greed and ordinary
self-interest is clear in theory, like the difference between
pornography and art, and it is relatively easy to put most things
into one category or another, there is a good-sized grey area in
between the poles, and every person (or even the same person at
different times) is going to draw the precise line a little
differently.
the Ad Populum argument does not stand Actually, when
we're talking about the definition of a word, yes, it does, since
that's how words' meanings are determined - by they meanings most
commonly given to them through people's usage.
My argument is that people use the word "greed" in a negative
way to refer to people's productivity or success in creating
wealth. And your argument is nonesense, since virtually nobody
uses the word "greed" to refer to productivity or success in
creating wealth.
|2.16.08 @ 6:17PM|#
I mean, by that last sentence, that the use of the term greed to
mean "productivity or success creating wealth" is much, much less
common than its use as "inordinate or insatiate longing, especially
for wealth; covetous desire."
Note the adjectives in there - ordinary longing, even for wealth,
that is not "inordinate" or "insatiate" is not greed. Greed is a
subset of the desire for wealth, a particular type characterized by
being so overweening as to rise to the level of a pathology.
Neu Mejican|2.16.08 @ 8:28PM|#
Francisco Torres,
Reads like someone's opinion, Neu.
It is an article discussing the various opinions on the meaning of
the word valence in psychology, so, yes, it is one of the opinions
about how that word should be used. Much of academics is about
delimiting the usage of a word so that a meaningful discussion of
the concept can ensue.
When I said greed had a negative valence, I was using the common
connotation of the word to delimit the concept for
discussion.
You (and Stossel) want the word to lose its negative valence. But
what you are really doing is conflating a normal desire to improve
one's lot and and gain assets, a concept with positive valence,
with a related concept, greed which has a negative valence.
You have yet to present an argument for why the distinction between
the concept with positive valence and the one with negative valence
should be lost in the language. The term "greed" provides a
mechanism to make the distinction.
Mike Laursen|2.16.08 @ 11:24PM|#
joe, we have contract law, we have environmental regulation, we
have insider trading laws, we have anti-trust laws, etc. I assume
these are the types of laws you are referring to. These are laws
concerning acts that may be motivated by greed, but they all have
other rationales for existing.
I assume you don't think we need "laws ... to restrain people
motivated by greed" per se, to make a capitalist sytem work. Or do
you?
|2.17.08 @ 1:57AM|#
Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that greed helps everybody
across the board. Sure, a rising tide lifts all boats. But it
drowns people who don't have boats. I wonder how many of the
Africans making slop in that village really care that Michael
Milken made quick fill-ups at 7-11 possible.
Pretending that greed works better than philanthropy fails to
understand that many areas aren't able to benefit from rising tides
and boats.
Still, I think Stossel was making a generalization. After all, he
did note that there is a long list of CEOs who were criminal (like
Ken Lay), and that too many CEOs make huge salaries even though
their companies are hemorrhaging jobs. I'm not sure how reducing
the number of jobs, reducing income from stock ownership and
shrinking the company benefits anybody.
Mike Laursen|2.17.08 @ 11:14AM|#
I'm not sure how reducing the number of jobs, reducing
income from stock ownership and shrinking the company benefits
anybody.
The best that can be said about such cost cutting is it can keep a
company solvent, preventing zero jobs, zero income, and zero
benefits. (In no way should this be interpreted as a defense of Ken
Lay or Enron.)
Mike Laursen|2.17.08 @ 11:18AM|#
In my line of business, it seems that layoffs often are used to get rid of a bunch of people that they would like to fire. Normally, it's hard to fire someone without risk of legal hassles, but in a layoff they don't have to give any reasons. Often, they'll lay off a bunch of people and turn right around and go on a hiring binge.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245