What Is "Greed"?

[MikeK]

Your questions are irrelevant except in revealing your mindset, which is "I'll never make that much but if I did I'd find it plenty."

As simple as my questions are the fact that you are unwilling to answer them is what really is revealing in this exchange.

My mindset where money is concerned is I will never be wealthy simply because I have no such motivation. I am quite content with the comforts of a middle class lifestyle in which I have everything I need and want for nothing. My leisure time has always been much too valuable to waste in the pursuit of money.

Fortunately we dont make public policy based on the beliefs of ignorant working class people envious of others' success.

If you consider success to be the accumulation of money it becomes obvious that you've never been close enough to anyone who is truly wealthy but truly miserable. But you can take my word for it there are many who fit that description.

Why do you think Bill Gates is one of the richest men in America?

The microcomputer's time had come and Bill Gates was in the right place at the right time. If he were not in that position when that star crossed with his someone else would have been. As far as his phenomenal financial success is concerned, based on what I've read he is far more proficient at exploiting business opportunity than in developing technology.

Based on what I've read about Gates' success it began with the rather underhanded means by which he acquired the rights to make proprietary use of DOS, which was created by someone else and served as the springboard for Microsoft. Gates' exploitative nature is manifest in the endless progression of Windows versions which we are continually forced to pay hundreds of dollars for when each new version contains nothing but some relatively minor revisions and upgrades, most of which are absolutely unnecessary.

Bill Gates is an extremely lucky, devious and greedy opportunist -- characteristics which are key ingredients for phenomenal success in contemporary America.

 

[MikeK]

Greed is what this country is founded on. Some say its founded on Christian principles. They use their religion as a guise. As a Lutheran who has practiced Christianity his whole 75 years, I can honestly say this country is so far from a Christian nation its unreal. This nation is a purely hypocritical one which I can honestly say I cannot find one ounce of pride in anymore.

I too am seventy-five. Having watched the change take place in the character of America during the past half century I completely understand what you've said. It is undeniably obvious that greed has become the national religion in which the worship of money and all that derives from it has transformed America from the most respected and trusted Nation on Earth to the most despised and feared.

Unfortunately those of younger generations haven't been around long enough to know the difference. They don't know it hasn't always been this way and that the frenzied, greed-driven pursuit of wealth has altered the character of America and is likely to bring it down.

 

[Erand7899]

When a rational person is satisfied he/she leaves the table and makes room for another. Greed means never being satisfied. It is unconstrained gluttony.

No more complicated definition is needed.

So an individual that owns a lucrative and successful business should just shut it down when they have accumulated X amount of profits?????

[...]

Let's begin by assigning a number to X.

I believe the future and integrity of America would be ensured and the general quality of American society would be vastly improved if the IRS would confiscate all personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars, a level of wealth which should satisfy the material needs of any rational individual. But that does not mean a lucrative and successful business must be shut down, because a business which is capable of generating sufficient revenue to provide its principal with a twenty million dollar fortune can easily be sold or transferred. In fact there are brokers who specialize in such dispositions.

The objective of such an economic policy would be transition from a system of vertical distribution of the Nation's wealth resources to horizontal distribution. A good analogy would be distribution of 150 one-million-dollar prizes rather than one $150million "superball" lottery prize.

How do you suppose such a policy would affect your life?

Do you believe you have the ambition and the ability to accumulate a twenty million dollar fortune?

If you did manage to acquire that much money would you be content with the kind of luxury and security it could provide? If not, why not?

Who made you the judge of what is, or is not, adequate wealth? Nor, would I like a government politician or bureaucrat making that decision. However, the main laugh about this whole income inequality thing is that it is a mirage. The amount of money one person has, does not affect the amount of money any other person has. You would not be one dime richer if every multi-millionaire went bust tomorrow. You might actually be poorer, if you happened to draw your paycheck from one or more of them.

A very wealthy person once told me that wealth above $50 million ceased to be anything more than a means to keep score. It means status at the exclusive golf clubs, and determines the length of your yacht. It builds huge mansions as monuments to ensure people remember who you were, after you are gone.

People who envy the wealthy, and wish to see them punished by government, are s sorry lot of losers. If I even had such thoughts, I would be ashamed to let people know that I did. Something is wrong with people who do think like that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your questions are irrelevant except in revealing your mindset, which is "I'll never make that much but if I did I'd find it plenty."

As simple as my questions are the fact that you are unwilling to answer them is what really is revealing in this exchange.

My mindset where money is concerned is I will never be wealthy simply because I have no such motivation. I am quite content with the comforts of a middle class lifestyle in which I have everything I need and want for nothing. My leisure time has always been much too valuable to waste in the pursuit of money.

Fortunately we dont make public policy based on the beliefs of ignorant working class people envious of others' success.

If you consider success to be the accumulation of money it becomes obvious that you've never been close enough to anyone who is truly wealthy but truly miserable. But you can take my word for it there are many who fit that description.

Why do you think Bill Gates is one of the richest men in America?

The microcomputer's time had come and Bill Gates was in the right place at the right time. If he were not in that position when that star crossed with his someone else would have been. As far as his phenomenal financial success is concerned, based on what I've read he is far more proficient at exploiting business opportunity than in developing technology.

Based on what I've read about Gates' success it began with the rather underhanded means by which he acquired the rights to make proprietary use of DOS, which was created by someone else and served as the springboard for Microsoft. Gates' exploitative nature is manifest in the endless progression of Windows versions which we are continually forced to pay hundreds of dollars for when each new version contains nothing but some relatively minor revisions and upgrades, most of which are absolutely unnecessary.

Bill Gates is an extremely lucky, devious and greedy opportunist -- characteristics which are key ingredients for phenomenal success in contemporary America.

And there ya go. That is the left's take on why some people are rich: they were lucky, they were in the right place at the right time, if they weren't someone else would be in their place.

All wrong wrong wrong.
Bill Gates got to be a billionaire because he understood business, he could manage well, he worked hard, and most of all he increased productivity in this country by several factors. How much work has been saved by Microsoft's apps? How much more productive have Microsoft's apps made people? How much money has it saved companies? You couldn't count that high. And Gates gets a fraction of all the good that he did, not because he is an altruist, but because he wanted to become very rich.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Liberals................"free of want/greed" from depending upon someone elses confiscated wealth

Embarrassing

 

[Dr Grump]

Greed is when those who have much more than they will ever need, still want more at the cost of causing others pain and misery - usually via financial means...

I don't think Gates or Jobs or Zuckerberg count as greedy.

however there are a tonne of fund managers on Wall St and bankers who most definitely are....and the likes of Bernie Madoff...

 

[georgephillip]

Chomsky on Change:

"The change took place in the 1970s. There are a lot of reasons for it. One of the underlying factors, discussed mainly by economic historian Robert Brenner, was the falling rate of profit in manufacturing.

"There were other factors. It led to major changes in the economy -- a reversal of several hundred years of progress towards industrialization and development that turned into a process of de-industrialization and de-development.

"Of course, manufacturing production continued overseas very profitably, but it’s no good for the work force.

"Along with that came a significant shift of the economy from productive enterprise -- producing things people need or could use -- to financial manipulation. The financialization of the economy really took off at that time."

A Rebellious World or a New Dark Age? | Common Dreams

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wanting more than a liberal thinks you should be allowed to have.

Your statement is a charge without a suggestion of motive. Why do you suppose the Liberal wishes to impose a limit on accumulation of personal assets?

Doesnlt matter - the fact is, they do - and thus, my statement is sound.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

You have to enjoy references to chomsky and zinn...................

The marxist lefts favorite anti-american porn stars

 

[MikeK]

Liberals................"free of want/greed" from depending upon someone elses confiscated wealth

Embarrassing

I believe I qualify by today's political standards to be called a "Liberal." As such, whose confiscated wealth do think I depend on? Or are you just parroting some of the nonsense pumped into your head by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity?

If you choose to respond I suggest that some substantive examples to affirm the statement you made will be more productive than will some irrelevant adolescent insult.

 

[georgephillip]

"Plutonomy and the Precariat

"For the general population, the 99% in the imagery of the Occupy movement, it’s been pretty harsh -- and it could get worse. This could be a period of irreversible decline. For the 1% and even less -- the .1% -- it’s just fine. They are richer than ever, more powerful than ever, controlling the political system, disregarding the public. And if it can continue, as far as they’re concerned, sure, why not?"

A Rebellious World or a New Dark Age? | Common Dreams

 

[Dick Tuck]

The OWS movement rails about "greed", like we can outlaw an emotion.
But what is greed? Is someone who works hard because he wants to get ahead greedy? I don't think anyone would say so.
It seems greed is wanting money that legitimately doesn't belong to you. I can be as greedy as I want, but unless someone gives me money voluntarily then it doesn't do much. If I deceive someone, then I am a criminal. But if I deliver on what I've promised then I've earned my money.
By that definition the OWS crowd are the greedy ones. They demand their student loans get paid off, yet they've done nothing to deserve that. They demand--well, I dont know what they want. Neither do they. But demanding someone else's money is greed.

The issue is how you act on your emotions, and what your ethic is. I know that tobacco companies knew and know that their product is addictive, and shortens peoples lives. I know that asbestos companies knew that their product was dangerous and and wound up killing people. It's certainly legal to produce both, but is it ethical?

Look at the recent collapse of the housing bubble. Was it ethical to convince people who you knew couldn't afford a property to convince them that it was? Was it a con?

Just about every con in history plays on greed (some on God). We're all greedy. We all want more...more...more. The issue is where we draw the line.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's hardly greedy to supply legal products to people who want them.
Asbestos is an excellent product for its applications, better than any other material out there. That it had environmental problems is a downside, but every product has downsides. The internet has caused an explosion in extra marital affairs and divorces. Should computer makers put warning labels on their computers to that effect?

 

[MikeK]

Who made you the judge of what is, or is not, adequate wealth?

No one. I believe something, you disagree. Both positions are opinions, not judgments.

Nor, would I like a government politician or bureaucrat making that decision.

Any such decision would be enacted by legislation, which is the role of government bureaucrats. Would you prefer a king and other nobles to make such decisions?

However, the main laugh about this whole income inequality thing is that it is a mirage. The amount of money one person has, does not affect the amount of money any other person has. You would not be one dime richer if every multi-millionaire went bust tomorrow. You might actually be poorer, if you happened to draw your paycheck from one or more of them.

If your boss reduces your hourly wage from $20 to $10 do you not become poorer by his becoming richer?

By applying that elementary principle, how do you suppose 96% of the U.S. population has remained economically stagnant for the past three decades while 4% of the population has become proportionately wealthier? When some get more others get less. It's not very complicated at all.

A very wealthy person once told me that wealth above $50 million ceased to be anything more than a means to keep score. It means status at the exclusive golf clubs, and determines the length of your yacht. It builds huge mansions as monuments to ensure people remember who you were, after you are gone.

That is quite true. It is a contest of egos which results in the kind of excess and economic turmoil we are witnessing today -- and it should not be allowed. Imposition of a limit on how much of the Nation's financial resources may be greedily hoarded by individuals will put an end to such destructive contests and vastly improve the circulation of money, which is what makes the national economy grow .

People who envy the wealthy, and wish to see them punished by government, are s sorry lot of losers. If I even had such thoughts, I would be ashamed to let people know that I did. Something is wrong with people who do think like that.

Missing from your sarcastic observation is the fact that there always has been a wealthy upper class in America. But during times when the Nation's wealth resources have been equitably distributed no one paid any attention to the rich. So the idea that envy is the motivation behind the rising anti-excessive wealth movement is propaganda which only the one-dimensional mind is receptive to.
__________________

 

[MikeK]

It's hardly greedy to supply legal products to people who want them.
Asbestos is an excellent product for its applications, better than any other material out there. That it had environmental problems is a downside, but every product has downsides.

Every product does not have a downside that kills and/or makes people, including children, seriously ill. Asbestos does.

The internet has caused an explosion in extra marital affairs and divorces. Should computer makers put warning labels on their computers to that effect?

While it might be true that the Internet has facilitated extra-marital affairs it certainly has not caused them. The only cause of such behavior is one's inclination. If one is not inclined to be unfaithful nothing outside the marriage will alter that.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's hardly greedy to supply legal products to people who want them.
Asbestos is an excellent product for its applications, better than any other material out there. That it had environmental problems is a downside, but every product has downsides.

Every product does not have a downside that kills and/or makes people, including children, seriously ill. Asbestos does.

.

Sure it does. You could not name a product that could not make children seriously ill.

 

[MikeK]

It's hardly greedy to supply legal products to people who want them.
Asbestos is an excellent product for its applications, better than any other material out there. That it had environmental problems is a downside, but every product has downsides.

Every product does not have a downside that kills and/or makes people, including children, seriously ill. Asbestos does.

.

Sure it does. You could not name a product that could not make children seriously ill.

Baby oil that you rub on their hineys. (They're not supposed to drink it!)

 

[Dr Grump]

It's hardly greedy to supply legal products to people who want them.
Asbestos is an excellent product for its applications, better than any other material out there. That it had environmental problems is a downside, but every product has downsides. The internet has caused an explosion in extra marital affairs and divorces. Should computer makers put warning labels on their computers to that effect?

You totally missed his point...nothing new there....

 

[The Rabbi]

Every product does not have a downside that kills and/or makes people, including children, seriously ill. Asbestos does.

.

Sure it does. You could not name a product that could not make children seriously ill.

Baby oil that you rub on their hineys. (They're not supposed to drink it!)

Drink it and it could be harmful.
Next.

 

[M14 Shooter]

While it might be true that the Internet has facilitated extra-marital affairs it certainly has not caused them. The only cause of such behavior is one's inclination. If one is not inclined to be unfaithful nothing outside the marriage will alter that.

Interesting.

You will then agree that, while it might be true that firearms facilitate violent crimes, they certainly do not cause them. The only cause of such behavior is one's inclination. If one is not inclined to commit a violent crime, the presence of firearms will not alter that