# Is Greed good or evil?



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Recently, a member here sent me this quote when I told him I was being greedy.

_"The point is, ladies and gentleman, is that greed - for lack of a better word - is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms - greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind." - Gordon Gekko_

My question to you all: Is Greed evil as the mainstream tries to project it to be? Or like I told someone, greed is like money, it depends on its use and the context.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

At least in a very commercial sense, I tend to believe that a good measure of greed makes one productive and prosperous. No one ever got rich being truly altruistic.

There are, of course, other forms of greed. Being greedy for affection usually leads to years of therapy or a restraining order.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Lets not confuse a healthy level of ambition and the desire for a nice life with greed.

Greed, in my opinion, is when the natural desire and need for things has reached an unhealthy and even damaging level. Damaging both personally and socially. 

And I think that is what is generally understood as greed i.e. wanting more and more as the need becomes less and less.

In other words, wanting and lusting after what you don't need.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

My greed is good.

Yours is bad.

Next!!


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

"Greed" as traditionally defined is morally wrong--"the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." This is not the same as seeking to make more money, engaging in honest commercial activity or trying to better your family's financial condition. I'm sure the Randians will come out of the woodwork to defend the concept, but so be it.

I believe that the driving force behind socialism is also greed. It is the desire to take from others what is not yours for your own financial advancement.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> In other words, wanting and lusting after what you don't need.


You just described most of the clothes horses on AAAC!:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

AlanC said:


> I believe that the driving force behind socialism is also greed. It is the desire to take from others what is not yours for your own financial advancement.


    I think you should look up the word socialism in a dictionary ASAP! Because you clearly don't understand the first thing about it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> You just described most of the clothes horses on AAAC!:icon_smile_big:


Oh God yea, you're right. I hadn't thought about that :icon_smile_big:


----------



## harvey_birdman (Mar 10, 2008)

> *greed* (grēd) https://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html
> n. An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth:


Defined this way, I do not believe greed to be a "good thing". This does not mean it cannot result in good consequences, but the pursuit of money only for the sake of acquiring money does not seem to be a moral good.

Of course, simply because greed is not a moral good does not mean it should be outlawed or discouraged. Each person should be free to seek his or her own way in life, and I am in no position to tell others how to live so long as his or her greed does not result in actual harm to my person.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Still, defining just where the cut-off point is for how much material wealth one _needs_ is a bit problematic.


----------



## trent77 (Aug 6, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Lets not confuse a healthy level of ambition and the desire for a nice life with greed.
> 
> Greed, in my opinion, is when the natural desire and need for things has reached an unhealthy and even damaging level. Damaging both personally and socially.
> 
> ...


Do you think we should wait for the definitive answer from FrankDc?


----------



## RedBluff (Dec 22, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Oh God yea, you're right. I hadn't thought about that :icon_smile_big:


Agreed. Most men I know don't lust after shoe's and clothing like I do.
We're sick.
:icon_smile:


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I think you should look up the word socialism in a dictionary ASAP! Because you clearly don't understand the first thing about it.


I understand it very well. Apparently you do not.


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

Asterix said:


> My question to you all: Is Greed evil as the mainstream tries to project it to be? Or like I told someone, greed is like money, it depends on its use and the context.


It's an interesting question. Greed, by definition, is an "excessive desire" for x. I would suppose asking if greed is good or bad is akin to asking if over-eating is good or bad. Yes, I'm being a little silly.

There is a difference between believing greed is good or bad and recognizing that the world is ineluctably governed by greed in one form or another.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

trent77 said:


> Do you think we should wait for the definitive answer from FrankDc?


Do us all a favor and hold your breath until "we" do.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Gents,

 I appreciate your responses. According to the Oxford Dictionary, Greed is defined as the intense and selfish desire for food, wealth, power or anything so in my opinion I believe greed along with altruism, curiosity, necessity, etc is crucial, because it is an important incentive for people to work hard, get a good education, start a business, or invest in any business venture because the result of these activities makes people productive and contributing members of the society.

Greed is what made America in within some decades overtake many first world countries like the UK or Germany in advancement, wealth and strength. The people who risked their lives to settle in the present day America traveled hundreds of miles to go to new place did so out of self(ish) interest.  The key is to not let our greed (the good one) make us exploit others (bad greed.)


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Greed is one of the seven deadly sins and shows up everywhere as a vice to be avoided. Seems easy enough, in theory, to separate from ambition. But in practice? eh! :crazy:

This is my favorite anti-avarice/greed quote:

*"Whatever joy there is in this world,
All comes from wanting others to be happy.
Whatever suffering there is in this world,
All comes from wanting oneself to be happy."*
--_Bodhicharyavatara_, VIII, 129.


----------



## RedBluff (Dec 22, 2009)

Quay said:


> Greed is one of the seven deadly sins and shows up everywhere as a vice to be avoided. Seems easy enough, in theory, to separate from ambition. But in practice? eh! :crazy:
> 
> This is my favorite anti-avarice/greed quote:
> 
> ...


Brilliant qoute.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

AlanC said:


> I understand it very well. Apparently you do not.


Seriously, you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't be making such uninformed comments about it.

Socialism is the ideological opposite of greed. In that in its ideal "utopian" state everyone has what they need and the wealth and means of production and distribution are controlled by the state and shared equally. Equal wealth. I know lots of Americans view socialism as anathema but that's because they mostly don't understand it and incorrectly equate socialism with communism. 
Socialism is an econmic theory, an ideology. Communism is a political system for state rule - many communist countries in the past (especially in Africa) have not ideologically been socialist and have not implemented socialist economics. In the same way that Nazism was the ideology, and Facism its political system for state rule.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Greed is, for example, getting dirty money. What is dirty money? Using people against themselves. Like being a pimp where the prostitute is forced (these are often murdered so they don't talk when finished using them). Judas who sold Jesus certainly didn't make tons of money, really not much, but he did it out of greed. Other things that have greed in them, such as lust, which isn't looking out for the best of other people.

Liking money, or anything else, is different than greed. It's not how much you have or made but how you got it, whether it be lots or a little. Abraham was extremely wealthy, but not greedy. Honest work may produce wealth. Greedy people always have a conscience bothering them, even though they may not notice it, because greed often blinds them to it. 

Greed is evil and never good.

A few of my thoughts about what greed is.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WA said:


> Judas who sold Jesus certainly didn't make tons of money, really not much, but he did it out of greed.


No he didn't. Not at all.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> No he didn't. Not at all.


You have some explaining to do. Traitor means greed.

I guess I will do better than you, nighty night.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WA said:


> You have some explaining to do. Traitor means greed.
> 
> I guess I will do better than you, nighty night.


 What? do you actually understand what you write?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Socialism is the ideological opposite of greed. In that in its ideal "utopian" state everyone has what they need


Socialism is the opposite of greed in Utopia. Therein lies the problem.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Relayer said:


> Socialism is the opposite of greed in Utopia. Therein lies the problem.


I agree for the most part, except for where socialism truly worked, for example, on Kibbutz in Israel and in the "Soviet" dairies and factories in the new Republic of Ireland in the 1920s.

Marx himself said that his economic political theory was simply that, a theory, and that he never expected anyone to put it into practice. The poor man must have been turning in his grave in 1917! And I wonder what he would have made of Marxist-Leninist practice in the USSR?

My father also said something similar in pointing out that socialism can only truly work in a country that is already well-developed and well-organised, like Ireland or England or Sweden, and he used to tell me about the "soviets" that still existed in his childhood Ireland in the 1930s and 40s.

Which is why socialism or more correctly it's adapted form of state control, Marxist-Leninist communism, has never worled well in any poor under developed, badly organised African country.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Relayer said:


> Socialism is the opposite of greed in Utopia. Therein lies the problem.


Yes. I always thought that the problem with Utopian societies is that very few people consider them to be their idea of Utopia. :icon_smile:


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

I'm not sure how the confiscation of the private property of others by force can be considered altruistic. If I'm going to take someone's else's property of course I'm going to tell them I'm only doing it because I'm really better than they are.

Socialism isn't the opposite of greed. Charity is.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Seriously, you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't be making such uninformed comments about it.
> 
> Socialism is the ideological opposite of greed. In that in its ideal "utopian" state everyone has what they need and the wealth and means of production and distribution are controlled by the state and shared equally. Equal wealth. I know lots of Americans view socialism as anathema but that's because they mostly don't understand it and incorrectly equate socialism with communism.
> Socialism is an econmic theory, an ideology. Communism is a political system for state rule - many communist countries in the past (especially in Africa) have not ideologically been socialist and have not implemented socialist economics. In the same way that Nazism was the ideology, and Facism its political system for state rule.


Yes, socialism is an economic theory. One in which people have a greed for power over people they deem less intelligent than them. Think about it: socialism is all about government officials telling others they know your needs and wants better than you.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> I agree for the most part, except for where socialism truly worked, for example, on Kibbutz in Israel and in the "Soviet" dairies and factories in the new Republic of Ireland in the 1920s.


Yes, Ireland is so much worse off now that is has adopted a capitalistic society. They should quickly revert!


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

So it's come to this, a thread that actually asks is greed good or bad.

It is good only when you've morphed yourself into an itty bitty Right-winger and thus now need justification for your me-first pursuits. I'm with the dictionary and The Earle. And I never ever thought I would need to address such a stupid question as this thread poses. Blaaagh.​


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> So it's come to this, a thread that actually asks is greed good or bad.
> 
> It is good only when you've morphed yourself into an itty bitty Right-winger and thus now need justification for your me-first pursuits. I'm with the dictionary and The Earle. And I never ever thought I would need to address such a stupid question as this thread poses. Blaaagh.​


Okay Senile old fart. You have been noticed. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> So it's come to this, a thread that actually asks is greed good or bad.
> 
> It is good only when you've morphed yourself into an itty bitty Right-winger and thus now need justification for your me-first pursuits. I'm with the dictionary and The Earle. And I never ever thought I would need to address such a stupid question as this thread poses. Blaaagh.​


There is no "need" to discuss the issue. Only a desire because it is an interesting topic to the broadminded.


----------



## Pleasant McIvor (Apr 14, 2008)

In order to make this question able to be answered in any real way, it must be specified exactly what is meant by "greed" and against what system of morals this "good" is set. If Christian morality, then no, greed is not good, but I'm sure a different argument can be made based on other beliefs and by those who do not think goodness is absolute.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

AlanC said:


> I'm not sure how the confiscation of the private property of others by force can be considered altruistic. If I'm going to take someone's else's property of course I'm going to tell them I'm only doing it because I'm really better than they are.
> 
> Socialism isn't the opposite of greed. Charity is.


No, you still haven't got it. You're still confusing socialism with totalitarian communist dictatorships. Two very different things. Like I said consult a dictionary.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> Yes, socialism is an economic theory. One in which people have a greed for power over people they deem less intelligent than them. Think about it: socialism is all about government officials telling others they know your needs and wants better than you.
> 
> Yes, Ireland is so much worse off now that is has adopted a capitalistic society. They should quickly revert!


Ditto what I said to Alan, you don't understand socialism it at all. You are also confusing socialism with totalitarian communist dictatorships. Two very different things. Like I said to Alan consult a dictionary.
I know of course that any politics that even hint at social democracy and helping your fellow man in any way, for example, Obama's idea for free healthcare is considered out and out communism and totally unamerican.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

The definition of greed is that it's a particular form of evil/destructive/negativity/bad-ness. That's what the word was created to mean. It cannot be a good, unless you want to pervert the meaning of the word. Asking if greed is good is like asking if evil is (or can be) good, or what's further north than the north pole. It's a nonsense question.

Like sloth and envy, greed is also a purely internal, emotional, mental state, and is, in itself, a purely subjective, personal matter, and therefore not a legitimate justification for the use of force against someone who may be deemed by others to be greedy.

Saying that socialism is the ideological opposite of greed is pure comedy. It's like saying that a state (institutionalized violence) can be designed to be the ideological opposite of lust, and therefore remove it from the list of human concerns. Hilarious.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> I know of course that any politics that even hint at social democracy and helping your fellow man in any way, for example, Obama's idea for _*free*_ healthcare is considered out and out communism and totally unamerican.


Free? Ha! Man, you should take your stand-up routine on the road.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> What? do you actually understand what you write?


My mistake. It was trent77 that said good night, and I guess he went to sleep. For some reason I thought that you said good night.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

My apologies if some of you consider the question as a nonsense question. I posted the thread and question with the hope that we can have an intellectual exchange of ideas/thoughts that would be based on a broad minded view of things without wallowing in the narrow confines of a dictionary definition especially since I can safely presume we all have at the minimum high school diplomas and can recite or google the dictionary definition of the word "Greed."


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

KenR said:


> There is no "need" to discuss the issue. Only a desire because it is an interesting topic to the broadminded.


Thank you. You seem to have a good idea of the thought behind the topic.



Pleasant McIvor said:


> In order to make this question able to be answered in any real way, it must be specified exactly what is meant by "greed" and against what system of morals this "good" is set. If Christian morality, then no, greed is not good, but I'm sure a different argument can be made based on other beliefs and by those who do not think goodness is absolute.


I meant greed in terms of people carrying out self based actions that when done reasonably can be beneficial to more people than themselves but when done in the extreme can be harmful.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Fascinating that so many Americans here have such strong views on socialism without even correctly knowing what socialism is. And consistently mixing it up with communism of various varieties, Maoist, Stalinist, and Marxist-Leninist.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

While we may blur the distinction between socialism and communism it still does not mean that socialism is preferable to capitalism, at least by Americans. We are not necessarily in awe of the European welfare state.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

KenR said:


> While we may blur the distinction between socialism and communism it still does not mean that socialism is preferable to capitalism, at least by Americans. We are not necessarily in awe of the European welfare state.


I've never claimed it is preferable to capitalism, not for a moment. I was simply responding to the initial comment about socialism made by AlanC where he equated socialism directly with greed. Stating that the driving force behind socialism is greed is totally incorrect. And as you know Swedes and Brits are not in awe of the American system.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Fascinating that so many Americans here have such strong views on socialism without even correctly knowing what socialism is. And consistently mixing it up with communism of various varieties, Maoist, Stalinist, and Marxist-Leninist.


Our Constitution is expressly suspicious of an overreaching central authority no matter what it is called!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Our Constitution is expressly suspicious of an overreaching central authority no matter what it is called!!


I know, but I still don't understand why the US is so hostile towards any kind of social democratic system for a welfare state. what is that fear? What is the stumbling block? Is it the necessary tax raise that would be needed that puts people off? Or is it as you mentioned a fear of more control going to federal govt or what?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I know, but I still don't understand why the US is so hostile towards any kind of social democratic system for a welfare state. what is that fear? What is the stumbling block? *Is it the necessary tax raise that would be needed that puts people off? Or is it as you mentioned a fear of more control going to federal govt or what?*


Both absolutely. And I'm sure more. The basic belief here is that one should reap the fruits of ones own labor. I do not work hard for myself and my family so that the government can take a large percentage away. Why strive if the tax rates are confiscatory.

And America was founded and settled based on individualism as a core tenet. We are shaped by the pioneer spirit. Liberty is not just a word here. There is a basis difference between the American and European way of life it seems.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I think greed is bad,sort of like groveling.There is no "good" in greed.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I know, but I still don't understand why the US is so hostile towards any kind of social democratic system for a welfare state.


From Social Security to The Great Society right here in the US every attempt at any kind of social democratic system for a welfare state has failed or will fail.

Miserably.

To me, that's just a tad off-putting!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

KenR said:


> Both absolutely. And I'm sure more. The basic belief here is that one should reap the fruits of ones own labor. I do not work hard for myself and my family so that the government can take a large percentage away. Why strive if the tax rates are confiscatory.
> 
> And America was founded and settled based on individualism as a core tenet. We are shaped by the pioneer spirit. Liberty is not just a word here. There is a basis difference between the American and European way of life it seems.


 Thanks Ken, I'm sure that you know that I know all that, I just need reminding occasionally. :icon_smile:


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I'm not sure of the "groveling" reference. I can't seem to equate the two. It may have many negative connotations, but that isn't one of them.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> From Social Security to The Great Society right here in the US every attempt at any kind of social democratic system for a welfare state has failed or will fail.
> 
> Miserably.
> 
> To me, that's just a tad off-putting!!


I think so too. Sad as well. As it reinforces the "every man for himself, I'm alright jack, survival of the fitest" view that many other countries already have of Americans as individuals in relation to their own communities and society.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Thanks Ken, I'm sure that you know that I know all that, I just need reminding occasionally. :icon_smile:


El gusto es mio.

Hejdo for now!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I know, but I still don't understand why the US is so hostile towards any kind of social democratic system for a welfare state. what is that fear? What is the stumbling block? Is it the necessary tax raise that would be needed that puts people off? Or is it as you mentioned a fear of more control going to federal govt or what?


Some of both. There is no nation on earth with as much social and economic mobility as the US, and we value that. One price we pay is greater income and wealth disparity, and people have different tolerance levels for that. We also distrust big government, even more than big business because it does not have to compete.

One interesting test to take: Posit two societies, each with three people. Society 1's income distribution (assume constant value of money) is 3, 4, and 10; while Society 2's income distribution is 2, 2, and 2. Which society is preferable? While conservatives easily select 1, many liberals would be more comfortable with 2. Of course, there is no right answer, and one can play with the hypothetical so that the choice isn't as stark. Nonetheless, it is a useful exercise since redistribution does affect productivity. To my surprise, many of my friends opted for 2 explaining that their egalitarian values trump their economic ones. One relevant factor is how one views the causes of individual outcomes: while most people agree that both luck (including family circumstances and innate ability) and free will play a part, liberals tend to place greater weight on luck while conservatives on choices. These are imponderables that don't lend themselves to empirical proof, but they how one sees them affects his public policy preferences, I think.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I think so too. Sad as well. As it einforces the "every man for himself, I'm alright jack, survival of the fitest" view that many other countries already have of the US.


Ultimately, the "every man for himself, I'm alright jack, survival of the fitest" is just a more efficient way to deliver goods and services to the body public. It has it's faults as well but nothing approaching the family destroying policies and endless poverty that Good Intentions have brought.

BTW~I'm Alright Jack is a classic!!

Brazil is also a favorite movie of mine.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Ultimately, the "every man for himself, I'm alright jack, survival of the fitest" is just a more efficient way to deliver goods and services to the body public. It has it's faults as well but nothing approaching the family destroying policies and endless poverty that Good Intentions have brought.
> 
> BTW~I'm Alright Jack is a classic!!
> 
> Brazil is also a favorite movie of mine.


I pretty much agree. What Europeans don't understand is that the US free market system is complemented by an enormous charitable sector unlike anything in Europe. Voluntary redistribution is not only more efficient, it does not present as great a risk of "sense of entitlement" that destroys families and creates multi-generational poverty.

Unlike many conservatives, I'm not offended by the government playing a role in providing necessities to those in need of them, but that role must be played carefully in order to avoid perverse incentives. Part of that is a proper understanding of necessity.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Mike Petrik said:


> Some of both. There is no nation on earth with as much social and economic mobility as the US, and we value that. One price we pay is greater income and wealth disparity, and people have different tolerance levels for that. We also distrust big government, even more than big business because it does not have to compete.
> 
> One interesting test to take: Posit two societies, each with three people. Society 1's income distribution (assume constant value of money) is 3, 4, and 10; while Society 2's income distribution is 2, 2, and 2. Which society is preferable? While conservatives easily select 1, many liberals would be more comfortable with 2. Of course, there is no right answer, and one can play with the hypothetical so that the choice isn't as stark. Nonetheless, it is a useful exercise since redistribution does affect productivity. To my surprise, many of my friends opted for 2 explaining that their egalitarian values trump their economic ones. One relevant factor is how one views the causes of individual outcomes: while most people agree that both luck (including family circumstances and innate ability) and free will play a part, liberals tend to place greater weight on luck while conservatives on choices. These are imponderables that don't lend themselves to empirical proof, but they how one sees them affects his public policy preferences, I think.


Very interesting Mike. One of the most telling things about that though, and about,for example, the political choices menu on Facebook and other American-based forums is that "Liberal" is considered as left wing or akin to the social democrats because on such menus there is never a socialist or left-wing or Labour option,all of those seemingly covered by "Liberal"  Which gives a good idea of the centre-right heavy political divide in the US. i.e. there is no true left wing.

In Sweden, at the moment, the two ostensibly liberal parties Centre and Folk Party are in a sitting govt alliance with the Moderates (conservatives) and the Christian Democrats.

In Sweden and the UK liberals are considered as centre to right. But never anywhere remotely near the social democrats.

The Swedish Social Democratic party used to be called the Social Democratic Workers Party.

And Vänster (which simply means Left) are the Swedish Socialist Party, but they used to be called the Communist Party. But they're so watered down nowadays and with so little support that their only influence is when the Social Democrats are in power because then Vänster forms an alliance with them. And for some reason also with the awful middle class liberal-centre Green Environmental Party.

I'm rambling..sorry.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I still don't understand why the US is so hostile towards any kind of social democratic system for a welfare state. what is that fear? What is the stumbling block? Is it the necessary tax raise that would be needed that puts people off? Or is it as you mentioned a fear of more control going to federal govt or what?


The problem with socialism (and every other form of economic collectivization) is the destruction of the price system. The loss of true prices that reflect the value of the goods in question on the open market means that everyone involved suffers an immediate inability to engage in economic calculation. Without freely-functioning prices, no economic actor can make informed economic decisions -- no one has the necessary _*information*_ to know what to produce, what capital to invest in, what to spend on labor, what to consume, etc. The lack of free prices deprives everyone of crucial economic feedback, telling them when their economic activity (both production and consumption) is either wasteful or profitable.

Without voluntary trade and free-market prices, every economic decision is reduced to a mere guess. Socializing any form of economic enterprise is like trying to drive a car with a blindfold on.

Without prices (i.e., profit and loss), enterprises end up operating in an informational vacuum. But they still have to make decisions based on something, so instead of profit and loss, the decision-making criteria inevitably becomes either (a) their own convenience, or (b) _*politics*_. Economic calculation is replaced with political calculation.

That is the reason that in government-run enterprises (schools, for example), there has been a more or less constant decline in quality, while costs have steadily increased. And the problems escalate over time -- in the absence of any means to change their production methods, these problems intensify until they reach the upper limit in the form of political embarrassment. That's usually the point when politicians try to paper over the problem by implementing politically-motivated quality standards.

Private enterprises rapidly lose money when their customers aren't happy, and so they have to constantly monitor and adapt their production methods to improve quality, control costs, and please their customers. Prices (profit and loss) instantly show producers and consumers which production methods are economically viable and which are not. In contrast, government enterprises have no paying customers to please, since they do not derive their income by pleasing anyone who voluntarily pays them, so they inevitably develop a tin ear to the preferences of their would-be consumers, and cater instead to the preferences of their pay-masters -- the government.



Mike Petrik said:


> I pretty much agree. What Europeans don't understand is that the US free market system is complemented by an enormous charitable sector unlike anything in Europe.


The US free market system has been almost non-existent for 75 years.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Asterix said:


> I posted the thread and question with the hope that we can have an intellectual exchange of ideas/thoughts...


Please. There's no such thing as an intellectual discussion of greed, and if there was, you'd be the last one who should conduct it. When you've finished scratching your head over that, check out yonder intellectualism from, let's see now, why it's from you (!), the purveyor of intellectual exchanges.



Asterix said:


> Okay Senile old fart [me apparently]. You have been noticed.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Back to the original question. If there can be good and bad greed, then bad greed has shown its ugly face when many are hurt and it take serious "pruning" to bring back since and cents (this is what Reagan did). A well kept up economy is pruned yearly for maximum production of quality. Like apple trees; they need to be pruned so the fruit gets large and good flavors (the purpose of the tree), to help this further is thinning, keeping pest away, proper watering, and fertilizer. So with that some jobs get cut and people get hurt. Also, changes are needed, thinning..... Lack of proper up keep causes lots of problems, which is why the economy is where it is now. 

Some other thoughts. When the furniture makers move to the orient did that break the camels back by taking to many jobs $$$ away from Americans? This happened during Bush jrs. time. The odds and ends of this debate are many.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

KenR said:


> I'm not sure of the "groveling" reference. I can't seem to equate the two. It may have many negative connotations, but that isn't one of them.


I think being greedy is like begging.


----------

