What's Better? Greed? Giving? Or Government?

[bigrebnc1775]

To much of anything is not good.
greed without sharing or creating is not good
sharing without the responsibility of the receiver to take care of themselves is not good
and BIG government is very bad everybody loses their rights in the process.

 

[BlackSand]

And what if that greed is directed to profit for your family or community? Is that, then charity?

Greedy is what people today without money call people with money.

It lost any meaning when the idea to loot the rich became more popular than the idea of spending money wisely.
To argue about it is irrelevant, as I have said before ... If someone has $100 million in their pocket to start with ... They have a better idea of what to do than anyone else.
That doesn't mean that they will do what is best ... Just that they know what they are doing and how it effects others.

They can either use it wisely or abuse it ... But the onus is on them, no one else ... And they are responsible for how it is distributed whether they choose to give it away or put it to work.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

Invest in commerce and industry.
Creating more jobs so that others can make the choice as to whether or not they give to charity.

Right or wrong? I just know what would probably be the most logical and helpful to the economy and the people where the money is spent

Teaching a man to fish is better than giving him a fish

Yes but who is the better teacher? The volunteer working for a charity, say through big brother programs, or boss who wants you to flip burgers faster or assemble cars faster? Maybe the government worker that comes along and teaches a farmer how to get 50% more yield?

 

[RKMBrown]

And what if that greed is directed to profit for your family or community? Is that, then charity?

Greedy is what people today without money call people with money.

It lost any meaning when the idea to loot the rich became more popular than the idea of spending money wisely.
To argue about it is irrelevant, as I have said before ... If someone has $100 million in their pocket to start with ... They have a better idea of what to do than anyone else.
That doesn't mean that they will do what is best ... Just that they know what they are doing and how it effects others.

They can either use it wisely or abuse it ... But the onus is on them, no one else ... And they are responsible for how it is distributed whether they choose to give it away or put it to work.

.

Agreed, but I don't think Fox meant the spending should be forced. I think it was more a question of if you had 100m that you wanted to do good works with, what would you do with it kind of question.

 

[PixieStix]

Invest in commerce and industry.
Creating more jobs so that others can make the choice as to whether or not they give to charity.

Right or wrong? I just know what would probably be the most logical and helpful to the economy and the people where the money is spent

Teaching a man to fish is better than giving him a fish

Yes but who is the better teacher? The volunteer working for a charity, say through big brother programs, or boss who wants you to flip burgers faster or assemble cars faster? Maybe the government worker that comes along and teaches a farmer how to get 50% more yield?

The money belongs to the man who earned it. It is his to spend, in the way he sees fit., Or would you rather he hoard it, maybe buy gold, or silver to invest in? That would not help anyone.

A job is a good teacher

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually any of the three would be beneficial....but giving it to the government would probably be the least beneficial (to the individual, at least), unless he just wants to be free of the responsibility of using it wisely.

But the OP is not looking at any individual or anecdotal example. The OP is looking at the big picture--society as a whole--the entire community whether that is defined as our neighborhood, the town or city we live in, the county, the state, or the world.

To think critically in this concept we have to analyze on average--what benefits the MOST--not what benefits the individual.

 

[RKMBrown]

Invest in commerce and industry.
Creating more jobs so that others can make the choice as to whether or not they give to charity.

Right or wrong? I just know what would probably be the most logical and helpful to the economy and the people where the money is spent

Teaching a man to fish is better than giving him a fish

Yes but who is the better teacher? The volunteer working for a charity, say through big brother programs, or boss who wants you to flip burgers faster or assemble cars faster? Maybe the government worker that comes along and teaches a farmer how to get 50% more yield?

The money belongs to the man who earned it. It is his to spend, in the way he sees fit., Or would you rather he hoard it, maybe buy gold, or silver to invest in? That would not help anyone.

A job is a good teacher

What does hoarding have to do with my question?

I think the question is what would have the most impact, if I decide to spend my hundred million on a great charity, or investing in a great company, or forking over to government for a great public works project, something like that.

 

[Foxfyre]

This thread is still jumping, and thats cool and all - but the question is not answerable because there are situational ills that can come from all three and so it highly depends on the particular circumstance. In a bubble though private investment is the answer.

But the question IS answerable for those who are able to see a big picture concept apart from the anecdotal illustrations.

The critical thinker can appreciate that there are components of government that are necessary and essential for a democratic republic such as ours in which the first and foremost emphasis is on individual liberty. And he/she understands that the fact that some government is necessary and helpful does not negate the fact that way too much of the federal government is currently self serving, wasteful, corrupt, extravagant, improperly intrusive and producing far too many unintended negative consequences.

As a result, despite necessary functions, much of $100 million in taxes collected is swallowed up in the beaurocracy or wasted and does little or nothing to benefit society plus the additional disadvantage that it must remove the $100 million from the private sector economy before it can use it.

The critical thinker can appreciate that there are self serving and corrupt charities that are doing only enough to benefit society to keep their 5013C license intact and such do not deserve our money nor our respect. But the fact that such organizations exist does not negate the fact that there are wonderful, caring, selfless, and truly giving people running wonderful charties that are doing wonderful things. And such organizations do deserve our money, our encouragement, and our gratitude and respect.

Even when we give to the very best charities, however, they can only accomplish so much and have only so much reach however virtuous that reach is. And, like the government, the $100 million must be removed from the private sector economy before they can have it to use.

The critical thinker can appreciate that there are corrupt businessmen and woman running organizations that have little to commend them. But such organizations are fairly rare with the vast majority of private sector commerce and industry consisting of people trying to create and/or produce a product or service that is attractive and useful enough that people will buy it. And all the money toward that end boosts the economy via buying, providing useful products and services, and providing income for others to earn.

So the $100 million invested in starting, growing, or expanding a successful business is far more likely to benefit society overall by boosting the economy, via buying and paying taxes and creating other consumers and taxpayers, and creating the wealth that promotes more commerce and industry, funds the government, and creating sufficient expendable wealth of which some will go to good charities and, more importantly, making charity less necessary.

The critical thinker understands that there is good and bad in all things. But he/she can appreciate that on average, overall, and in the final analysis, the $100 million is far more likely to benefit society as a whole when invested in successful commerce and industry no matter how crass, greedy, selfish, or self serving is the person engaged in it.

WOW

So you agree your original questions were bogus and to prove that you hypocritically call anyone who disagrees with your generalized views on spending as people who are not critical thinkers like you.

No that is not what I agree to, but I'm not surprised that someone like you, someone who would rather criticze the way others think and express themselves rather than engage in cirtical thought of the concept being discussed, would think so.

Nor do you have it right in a subsequent post that I was asking anybody to express what he or she would do with the money if he/she had it.

Some here, however, are understanding the concept. And I really REALLY am appreciating that a lot.

 

[RKMBrown]

Actually any of the three would be beneficial....but giving it to the government would probably be the least beneficial (to the individual, at least), unless he just wants to be free of the responsibility of using it wisely.

But the OP is not looking at any individual or anecdotal example. The OP is looking at the big picture--society as a whole--the entire community whether that is defined as our neighborhood, the town or city we live in, the county, the state, or the world.

To think critically in this concept we have to analyze on average--what benefits the MOST--not what benefits the individual.

Fox, I don't value money as much as I do people. Thus for me the best spent money is spent on bettering people, such as ensuring parents have the skills to be great parents, and if lacking in some important aspect providing some thing to fill the gap to strengthen the foundations their kids get thus enabling each kid to their potential in life. That does not mean public education, unless the public educators are truly making a difference in the kids lives. That does not mean a big brother, unless that big brother is making a difference.

A good way to spend money, for example, is to support recreational sports for kids, to get the kids off the computers and interacting with other kids, to learn discipline and desire. But again, even here, a good coaching staff and/or dedicated parents are needed.

 

[Foxfyre]

We should all ask ourselves and I wonder how many can answer honestly?

What is better? To help out those who are out of work or supplement those who are underemployed? - or - create an economy where all who want to can find work and earn a living? Full employment produces such an economy.

What is better? To give of our bounty to help out somebody in need? - or - create coditions so that the person is no longer in need?

What is better? To give our money to government that will return a fraction of it to folks government deems to be needy or worthy? - or - Create conditions that reduce such need and making determination of who needs and/or is worthy to receive our charity ourselves?

Can you not form questions that are obvious straw-men?

Your statements indicate you assume giving money to government always results in waste, all investments improve our lives, and all charities are hand-outs...

Huh?

Please point to any statement that I have made that assumes giving money to government always results in waste. I can point to several of my statements in this thread that thoroughly refutes that.

Please point to any statement that I have made that says 'all charities are hand-outs'. I can point to several statements in this thread that thoroughly refutes that.

So much for critical thinking (or observation for that matter) on your part. I don't mind at all those who disagree with me. I encourage that. But I really resent those who would put words in my mouth that I didn't say - even though you quote exactly what I DID say - or those who put motives or thoughts in my head that simply don't exist.

The questions however are valid ones for anybody with the balls to answer them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually any of the three would be beneficial....but giving it to the government would probably be the least beneficial (to the individual, at least), unless he just wants to be free of the responsibility of using it wisely.

But the OP is not looking at any individual or anecdotal example. The OP is looking at the big picture--society as a whole--the entire community whether that is defined as our neighborhood, the town or city we live in, the county, the state, or the world.

To think critically in this concept we have to analyze on average--what benefits the MOST--not what benefits the individual.

Fox, I don't value money as much as I do people. Thus for me the best spent money is spent on bettering people, such as ensuring parents have the skills to be great parents, and if lacking in some important aspect providing some thing to fill the gap to strengthen the foundations their kids get thus enabling each kid to their potential in life. That does not mean public education, unless the public educators are truly making a difference in the kids lives. That does not mean a big brother, unless that big brother is making a difference.

A good way to spend money, for example, is to support recreational sports for kids, to get the kids off the computers and interacting with other kids, to learn discipline and desire. But again, even here, a good coaching staff and/or dedicated parents are needed.

The questions offering in the OP, however, do not include what we do or do not value. The questions offered in the OP do not ask anybody to list what IS valuable or what helps or is beneficial to people. That list could go on for pages.

The OP asks us to focus on three very specific concepts and limit the discussion to those three things:

What is most likely to benefit society the most--i.e. all of society or society in general or society overall--if the rich guy has $100 million to use and is going to choose to spend it between those three things and ONLY those three things:

1. Paying the money in taxes to the government? - or -
2. Giving the money to a good charity? - or -
3. Investing the money in a successful new business or growing or expanding one?

 

[BlackSand]

Actually any of the three would be beneficial....but giving it to the government would probably be the least beneficial (to the individual, at least), unless he just wants to be free of the responsibility of using it wisely.

But the OP is not looking at any individual or anecdotal example. The OP is looking at the big picture--society as a whole--the entire community whether that is defined as our neighborhood, the town or city we live in, the county, the state, or the world.

To think critically in this concept we have to analyze on average--what benefits the MOST--not what benefits the individual.

1. Government ...Beneficial

With added bureaucracy, waste and inefficiency ... Any Business owner knows those three things are not productive.
The ability to provide for business is a greater opportunity to introduce political corruption.
The ability to provide for charity is the institution of welfare toward relief and not progress.

2. Charity ... Beneficial

Charity is often distributed faster and provides immediate care for those in need ... But is still more of a remedy for immediate symptoms than any kind of sustainable fix to the core problems.
Does not have the ability to provide much towards government other than reduced resources necessary for immediate care.
Does not provide much for business outside of general community health after disasters.

3. Investment in Business ... Beneficial

Investment in business offers the most of all three choices as far as possible opportunities for overall improvement.
Investment in business can also allow for the opportunity to increase revenues to the government to handle whatever projects they desire.
Investment in business can also allow the opportunity for both the business and the employees to contribute to charity.

It is not as hard as it seems to answer the question when you cut away the preconceived notions of what people think someone else should do.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

But the question IS answerable for those who are able to see a big picture concept apart from the anecdotal illustrations.

The critical thinker can appreciate that there are components of government that are necessary and essential for a democratic republic such as ours in which the first and foremost emphasis is on individual liberty. And he/she understands that the fact that some government is necessary and helpful does not negate the fact that way too much of the federal government is currently self serving, wasteful, corrupt, extravagant, improperly intrusive and producing far too many unintended negative consequences.

As a result, despite necessary functions, much of $100 million in taxes collected is swallowed up in the beaurocracy or wasted and does little or nothing to benefit society plus the additional disadvantage that it must remove the $100 million from the private sector economy before it can use it.

The critical thinker can appreciate that there are self serving and corrupt charities that are doing only enough to benefit society to keep their 5013C license intact and such do not deserve our money nor our respect. But the fact that such organizations exist does not negate the fact that there are wonderful, caring, selfless, and truly giving people running wonderful charties that are doing wonderful things. And such organizations do deserve our money, our encouragement, and our gratitude and respect.

Even when we give to the very best charities, however, they can only accomplish so much and have only so much reach however virtuous that reach is. And, like the government, the $100 million must be removed from the private sector economy before they can have it to use.

The critical thinker can appreciate that there are corrupt businessmen and woman running organizations that have little to commend them. But such organizations are fairly rare with the vast majority of private sector commerce and industry consisting of people trying to create and/or produce a product or service that is attractive and useful enough that people will buy it. And all the money toward that end boosts the economy via buying, providing useful products and services, and providing income for others to earn.

So the $100 million invested in starting, growing, or expanding a successful business is far more likely to benefit society overall by boosting the economy, via buying and paying taxes and creating other consumers and taxpayers, and creating the wealth that promotes more commerce and industry, funds the government, and creating sufficient expendable wealth of which some will go to good charities and, more importantly, making charity less necessary.

The critical thinker understands that there is good and bad in all things. But he/she can appreciate that on average, overall, and in the final analysis, the $100 million is far more likely to benefit society as a whole when invested in successful commerce and industry no matter how crass, greedy, selfish, or self serving is the person engaged in it.

WOW

So you agree your original questions were bogus and to prove that you hypocritically call anyone who disagrees with your generalized views on spending as people who are not critical thinkers like you.

No that is not what I agree to, but I'm not surprised that someone like you, someone who would rather criticze the way others think and express themselves rather than engage in cirtical thought of the concept being discussed, would think so.

Nor do you have it right in a subsequent post that I was asking anybody to express what he or she would do with the money if he/she had it.

Some here, however, are understanding the concept. And I really REALLY am appreciating that a lot.

Your idea of critical thought and mine are really just not in the same realm. You think my questions were criticizing, but yours are not? Is that really what you think? Go back read your questions in view of where we are in the discussion, and then read my questions. You'll note my questions and answers are meant to help you, whether you want my help or not. Just as your OP was intended to help, no? I don't expect you to appreciate, but I would expect you to figure out the basics of the dangers of generalizing questions that serve to divide us based on our own personal experiences in life resulting in vastly different reads on certain types of questions.

To your credit you almost admitted to one poster that you were wrong about using "greed" as a term vs. "private investment." Admitting when you are wrong is a hard thing to do for type A people. I applaud your effort.

I'm here to participate in this interesting topic, I have no ulterior motives here, just laying out my opinion on this oft discussed topic.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually any of the three would be beneficial....but giving it to the government would probably be the least beneficial (to the individual, at least), unless he just wants to be free of the responsibility of using it wisely.

But the OP is not looking at any individual or anecdotal example. The OP is looking at the big picture--society as a whole--the entire community whether that is defined as our neighborhood, the town or city we live in, the county, the state, or the world.

To think critically in this concept we have to analyze on average--what benefits the MOST--not what benefits the individual.

1. Government ...Beneficial

With added bureaucracy, waste and inefficiency ... Any Business owner knows those three things are not productive.
The ability to provide for business is a greater opportunity to introduce political corruption.
The ability to provide for charity is the institution of welfare toward relief and not progress.

2. Charity ... Beneficial

Charity is often distributed faster and provides immediate care for those in need ... But is still more of a remedy for immediate symptoms than any kind of sustainable fix to the core problems.
Does not have the ability to provide much towards government other than reduced resources necessary for immediate care.
Does not provide much for business outside of general community health after disasters.

3. Investment in Business ... Beneficial

Investment in business offers the most of all three choices as far as possible opportunities for overall improvement.
Investment in business can also allow for the opportunity to increase revenues to the government to handle whatever projects they desire.
Investment in business can also allow the opportunity for both the business and the employees to contribute to charity.

It is not as hard as it seems to answer the question when you cut away the preconceived notions of what people think someone else should do.

.

By jove I believe she's got it! - or at least is getting it. This response I believe merits an A minus.

And--this is my point of view only--if you could reword your government clause to take out the critical judgment or intended negatives and make it as objective as you did your charity and business clauses, I would give you an A plus.

P.S. you get extra credit for stating it much more succinctly than I did. Being a woman of few words in one these things is NOT one of my virtues.

 

[RKMBrown]

But the OP is not looking at any individual or anecdotal example. The OP is looking at the big picture--society as a whole--the entire community whether that is defined as our neighborhood, the town or city we live in, the county, the state, or the world.

To think critically in this concept we have to analyze on average--what benefits the MOST--not what benefits the individual.

Fox, I don't value money as much as I do people. Thus for me the best spent money is spent on bettering people, such as ensuring parents have the skills to be great parents, and if lacking in some important aspect providing some thing to fill the gap to strengthen the foundations their kids get thus enabling each kid to their potential in life. That does not mean public education, unless the public educators are truly making a difference in the kids lives. That does not mean a big brother, unless that big brother is making a difference.

A good way to spend money, for example, is to support recreational sports for kids, to get the kids off the computers and interacting with other kids, to learn discipline and desire. But again, even here, a good coaching staff and/or dedicated parents are needed.

The questions offering in the OP, however, do not include what we do or do not value. The questions offered in the OP do not ask anybody to list what IS valuable or what helps or is beneficial to people. That list could go on for pages.

The OP asks us to focus on three very specific concepts and limit the discussion to those three things:

What is most likely to benefit society the most--i.e. all of society or society in general or society overall--if the rich guy has $100 million to use and is going to choose to spend it between those three things and ONLY those three things:

1. Paying the money in taxes to the government? - or -
2. Giving the money to a good charity? - or -
3. Investing the money in a successful new business or growing or expanding one?

Ok then I don't understand what you mean by "benefit" society the most.

I don't mean to be rude but you almost seem to be saying here that the only valid measure of money well spent is its return on investment as measured by an increase in the overall wealth of society as measured by cash value for buying hard assets. Are we also limiting to short term returns on investment or are long term investments valid as well?

 

[Foxfyre]

WOW

So you agree your original questions were bogus and to prove that you hypocritically call anyone who disagrees with your generalized views on spending as people who are not critical thinkers like you.

No that is not what I agree to, but I'm not surprised that someone like you, someone who would rather criticze the way others think and express themselves rather than engage in cirtical thought of the concept being discussed, would think so.

Nor do you have it right in a subsequent post that I was asking anybody to express what he or she would do with the money if he/she had it.

Some here, however, are understanding the concept. And I really REALLY am appreciating that a lot.

Your idea of critical thought and mine are really just not in the same realm. You think my questions were criticizing, but yours are not? Is that really what you think? Go back read your questions in view of where we are in the discussion, and then read my questions. You'll note my questions and answers are meant to help you, whether you want my help or not. Just as your OP was intended to help, no? I don't expect you to appreciate, but I would expect you to figure out the basics of the dangers of generalizing questions that serve to divide us based on our own personal experiences in life resulting in vastly different reads on certain types of questions.

To your credit you almost admitted to one poster that you were wrong about using "greed" as a term vs. "private investment." Admitting when you are wrong is a hard thing to do for type A people. I applaud your effort.

I'm here to participate in this interesting topic, I have no ulterior motives here, just laying out my opinion on this oft discussed topic.

My questions were not in any sense critical. They were 100% objective. It is only those incapable of being objective about much of anything who would read more than that into them.

And in no place did I admit to anybody nor have I used "greed" as a term vs "private investment." I used 'greed' as a term some of you apply to private investment and was expressing regret that I gave those of you who would look at it that way some bait to use. I have been quite explicit that:

1. Describing ambition or self interest of those engaged in private enterprise as "greed" is silly talk.

2. The net benefit to society via a successful business enterprise is not affected by whether the business owner or owners are 'greedy' or have any negative character traits.

 

[RKMBrown]

Actually any of the three would be beneficial....but giving it to the government would probably be the least beneficial (to the individual, at least), unless he just wants to be free of the responsibility of using it wisely.

But the OP is not looking at any individual or anecdotal example. The OP is looking at the big picture--society as a whole--the entire community whether that is defined as our neighborhood, the town or city we live in, the county, the state, or the world.

To think critically in this concept we have to analyze on average--what benefits the MOST--not what benefits the individual.

1. Government ...Beneficial

With added bureaucracy, waste and inefficiency ... Any Business owner knows those three things are not productive.
The ability to provide for business is a greater opportunity to introduce political corruption.
The ability to provide for charity is the institution of welfare toward relief and not progress.

2. Charity ... Beneficial

Charity is often distributed faster and provides immediate care for those in need ... But is still more of a remedy for immediate symptoms than any kind of sustainable fix to the core problems.
Does not have the ability to provide much towards government other than reduced resources necessary for immediate care.
Does not provide much for business outside of general community health after disasters.

3. Investment in Business ... Beneficial

Investment in business offers the most of all three choices as far as possible opportunities for overall improvement.
Investment in business can also allow for the opportunity to increase revenues to the government to handle whatever projects they desire.
Investment in business can also allow the opportunity for both the business and the employees to contribute to charity.

It is not as hard as it seems to answer the question when you cut away the preconceived notions of what people think someone else should do.

.

I've known businesses that had every bit as much bureaucracy, every bit as much waste and inefficiency as our federal government does by scale. People do this. The bigger groups get the more inefficient they can become. The answers to inefficiencies are not the propriety of business. The reasons for inefficiencies are not exclusive to the government.

Again, the generalizations abound here and do not help but to create independent circles of people patting their friends on the back while they point to how silly the other group is.

 

[BlackSand]

I've known businesses that had every bit as much bureaucracy, every bit as much waste and inefficiency as our federal government does by scale. People do this. The bigger groups get the more inefficient they can become. The answers to inefficiencies are not the propriety of business. The reasons for inefficiencies are not exclusive to the government.

Again, the generalizations abound here and do not help but to create independent circles of people patting their friends on the back while they point to how silly the other group is.

You are arguing a case that is wasted on me ... I stated the bureaucracy, waste and inefficiency are all enemies of business ... And any business owner knows that.
The only thing that is certain is that government experiences all three as part of function ... And that is a fact not a generalization.

Government offers the ability to pool resources ... Advance larger projects ... But not without the built in added costs that are part of being a middleman.

The people I pat on the back are businesses that want to do things right ... Advance continuous improvement, sustainability, quality initiatives and consumer care.
When businesses engage in practices that put efficiency in charge of addressing production concerns ... They congratulate themselves with profit.
I personally love showing them how to examine their processes ... Enrich their community ... Abide by regulatory obligations ... And enhance the opportunities they can provide to their employees.

The thing I enjoy the most about it ... Is when they make my wallet fricken fat for helping them figure out how to do it.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox, I don't value money as much as I do people. Thus for me the best spent money is spent on bettering people, such as ensuring parents have the skills to be great parents, and if lacking in some important aspect providing some thing to fill the gap to strengthen the foundations their kids get thus enabling each kid to their potential in life. That does not mean public education, unless the public educators are truly making a difference in the kids lives. That does not mean a big brother, unless that big brother is making a difference.

A good way to spend money, for example, is to support recreational sports for kids, to get the kids off the computers and interacting with other kids, to learn discipline and desire. But again, even here, a good coaching staff and/or dedicated parents are needed.

The questions offering in the OP, however, do not include what we do or do not value. The questions offered in the OP do not ask anybody to list what IS valuable or what helps or is beneficial to people. That list could go on for pages.

The OP asks us to focus on three very specific concepts and limit the discussion to those three things:

What is most likely to benefit society the most--i.e. all of society or society in general or society overall--if the rich guy has $100 million to use and is going to choose to spend it between those three things and ONLY those three things:

1. Paying the money in taxes to the government? - or -
2. Giving the money to a good charity? - or -
3. Investing the money in a successful new business or growing or expanding one?

Ok then I don't understand what you mean by "benefit" society the most.

I don't mean to be rude but you almost seem to be saying here that the only valid measure of money well spent is its return on investment as measured by an increase in the overall wealth of society as measured by cash value for buying hard assets. Are we also limiting to short term returns on investment or are long term investments valid as well?

That you don't understand it is pretty obvious.

The purpose of the exercise as I intended it is to evaluate the benefit to society as a whole--no matter HOW that benefit is defined--when $100 is given to government via taxes or given to a good charity or invested to start, grow, and/or expand a successful business.

Going back to the critical thinking concept, it is pretty easy to come up with a conclusion of which of those three things is most likely to benefit society as a whole the most. Only one of those three things is most likely to:

1. Provide revenue for the government - AND -
2. Provide ability for people to give more to private charity - AND -
3. Provide opportunity, jobs, and economic prosperity for more people thus reducing some of the need for some of the government revenues and reducing the need for some of the private charity.

 

[RKMBrown]

No that is not what I agree to, but I'm not surprised that someone like you, someone who would rather criticze the way others think and express themselves rather than engage in cirtical thought of the concept being discussed, would think so.

Nor do you have it right in a subsequent post that I was asking anybody to express what he or she would do with the money if he/she had it.

Some here, however, are understanding the concept. And I really REALLY am appreciating that a lot.

Your idea of critical thought and mine are really just not in the same realm. You think my questions were criticizing, but yours are not? Is that really what you think? Go back read your questions in view of where we are in the discussion, and then read my questions. You'll note my questions and answers are meant to help you, whether you want my help or not. Just as your OP was intended to help, no? I don't expect you to appreciate, but I would expect you to figure out the basics of the dangers of generalizing questions that serve to divide us based on our own personal experiences in life resulting in vastly different reads on certain types of questions.

To your credit you almost admitted to one poster that you were wrong about using "greed" as a term vs. "private investment." Admitting when you are wrong is a hard thing to do for type A people. I applaud your effort.

I'm here to participate in this interesting topic, I have no ulterior motives here, just laying out my opinion on this oft discussed topic.

My questions were not in any sense critical. They were 100% objective. It is only those incapable of being objective about much of anything who would read more than that into them.

And in no place did I admit to anybody nor have I used "greed" as a term vs "private investment." I used 'greed' as a term some of you apply to private investment and was expressing that I gave those of you who would look at it that way some bait to use. I have been quite explicit that:

1. Seeing ambition or self interest of those engaged in private enterprise as "greed" is silly talk.

2. The net benefit to society via a successful business enterprise is not affected by whether the business owner or owners are 'greedy' or have any negative character traits.

Yes, I understand that you are a good person that does not see the evil in others, well except for those like me that are honest to you.

To your statement that "[t]he net benefit to society via a successful business enterprise is not affected by whether the business owner or owners are 'greedy' or have any negative character traits" is more than a little naive. While you may have grandiose ideas about the altruistic nature of corporations, I'm here to tell you there are just as many downright evil corporations out there as there are evil people by ratio. Owning a company does not make someone more or less likely to be bad or good, just like someone running for government. More to the contrary it would seem people seeking power many times have less than altruistic motives.