I've long said that greed is not bad. Actually I think greed is neutral, being neither good nor bad, but something that just is. Typically when I say that it is not bad, someone has to chime in that I must be channeling Gordon Gecko. I thought I would actually explore this idea a bit more.

First, what is the definition of greed? I know many people from all political beliefs define it differently, so I'll use a standard definition. The definition I'm using is the one provided by dictionary.com. It states, very simply, that greed is "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions." Before anybody goes and accuses me of cherry picking a definition to meet my needs, I searched greed on yahoo.com and clicked the first non-wiki definition.

Looking at the definition, should greed be controlled, and more importantly, is it possible for a government to control greed. A third issue is whether the term is being used accurately by political groups.

A simple look at the definition tells me that greed should be controlled. The excessive desire for wealth can lead to people taking unfair actions to take advantage of others. Things like swindlers, and thieves need to be controlled, but what about two people voluntarily entering into an agreement where all of the details are written out? A contract can easily be written to strongly favor one party over the other. What is to prevent that from happening? What prevents that from happening is the party who is unfamiliar with the contract needs to get a lawyer or make sure they read and understand the contract. That is how private persons control greed. They ensure they are not going to be taken advantage of in any financial dealings, by understanding what they are doing and if they can't understand get a third, disinterested, party involved to explain what is going on.

So should the government get involved with controlling greed? I think that in instances where one party has lied to the other then absolutely the government needs to get involved. That is called fraud and is a crime. If two parties sign a contract, then the contract needs to be enforced exactly as it was signed. If it is later discovered that one party acted in poor faith then absolutely governmental action needs to occur. If one party verbally advises the other party during the transaction then the aggrieved party is out of luck. That is no different than trusting a thief to tell you the truth that they are not going to steal from you. Only a fool would do that. The uninhibited greed that both parties agree to is not something that the government can nor should be involved in. If everyone acted in good faith then everyone knew or should have known at least one party was going to make a lot of money from the other. If both parties are fine with the amount of money being made, what business is if of the government's? That is the basis of a free market. Two willing partners trading and coming to agreeable terms on the cost of the trade.

What is the profit level where it becomes greed or just simply making more money? If you own a gold mine and have to slave away 14 or 20 hours a day to collect an ounce of 24k gold, should you be paid more than the gold mine owner who is able to find the same purity gold just laying around on the surface in 20-30 minutes? The commodity is still the same commodity and the price is still set by a willing purchaser. If the person who is able to find the gold laying around were to charge a lower price then, the gold miner having to slave away would accuse him of trying to put the harder working miner out of business. So the one who has easy access to the gold is doomed no matter what. Either he is greedy for charging too much for the gold or he is greedy for trying to put the harder working miner out of business. Perhaps he is neither greedy nor trying to put anybody out of business. What if he charges market prices then donates much of the profits to a charity? Does that stop him from being greedy? But then wait a minute what if he starts his own charity and donates to it then charges a salary for running the charity? What if the rich person donates 1/3 of their yearly salary to charities they don't run? Would that mean they are not greedy? So the question is at what level of income and donations is the wealthy no longer considered greedy or is it just based on how much money and wealth they control?

If being greedy is simply based on the amount of wealth a person controls then it really isn't greedy, by the definition provided at the top of this post. When I was much younger I learned that the way to be wealthy wasn't through pay for your own performance, it was through having others make money for you and having your money make money for you. Since I am taking advantage of a worker, because I'm not paying them for the full value of their work, does that mean I'm greedy? Well would that worker have an income if they didn't have a job? If their occupation is one that requires them to be employed then I would say no. If they are able to sell their occupation to businesses then they no longer have a job they have a business. They would have to charge more for their service than it actually costs to provide it, so now the businesses are being taken advantage of because they are paying more for a service than it costs. But wait a second a fair price is one agreed to by voluntary parties to the trade, so if the business feels they are paying a fair price then it is a fair price. If an employee feels they are being paid a fair wage then it is a fair wage. I have found that those who seem to complain most about not being paid a fair wage either don't have any idea how much their services effect the bottom line or don't really do anything for the company. It doesn't make sense to pay someone more than they add to the bottom line of a company. If you bring in $40k to the business why would anybody in their right mind pay you $150k? It would be better for the company to simply not pay you and do without the $40k income and the $150k expense. It would improve the bottom line by $110k per year.

As many on the left have pointed out, when opposing the "virtue" laws, you can not legislate morality. Greed is a moral choice not a legal action. As such greed can not be legislated away. Also many who have complained about the "greedy rich" have been bastardizing the word to mean anybody who is rich. Fraud is a legal action and can be prosecuted. Look how many churches have tried to rid themselves of greed. Few succeed because it is a human emotion. You can not force someone to control their emotion of greed anymore than you can force someone to control who they like or love. Forcing someone to eat liver when they hate liver is not going to make them like liver. They'll eat it but still not like it. How about instead of trying to control the desire of becoming wealthy we use it to make the country a better place. Oh yeah, that is one of those failed policies of the past that we need to get rid of, but we can't control the nature of greed.

 

 

Greed is a morality issue, and not something that needs to be controlled.

The "greed" that you note are covered under a law, that is not greed that is being prosecuted, it is fraud, bait and switch, etc that is.
-That example greed might have caused them to do the illegal acts but they are not on trial for greed.

Some generally use "greed" as anyone who has more than them.
'If they have more than me, it is from greed' appears to be the mind set ( look at the thread on the time share owner to get an idea of how greed is misused ).

Was Ford greedy ? Was Rockefeller or JP Morgan ?
No they were not, they had drive to make something of themselves and complete any challenge in their way. They happen to get money in the process, but they also made money for others and did quite a bit for the country in the process.

If you have an iPhone ( or iAnything ) do you think Steve Jobs was greedy or did he have drive ?

Is Buffet greedy ? He has more than his family ( for multiple generations ) could ever spend, why does he not just cash in and spend time with his family ? He has drive that gets him out of bed every morning, to go address any challenge and end the day better than he started.

Money resulting from the Ford, Morgan, Westinghouse and Buffets of the world was not the end game, that was a by product of what they did on a daily basis.

There are some that will claim Ford, Morgan, Rockefeller and the likes abused their workers and paid them poorly. BS !
They paid the prevailing wage rate, supply and demand ( just like the Gold example ).
In the late 90s employees had the upper hand, and drove wages out of sight.
Now the converse is true ( supply outstrips demand ), and some cry foul. Wow, 12 years ago, everyone was laughing it up having a great time when any job had to pay over the norm just to get a body to stay there.
McDonalds in the Chicago Metro area were starting at 13.50 / hr in the late 90s.

Greed is often confused with ambition and drive from what I see.
- Again, ref the thread on Seigel to get an idea of what some people think of drive and ambition, it is criminal to some and sicking to more than a few.

Profits do not represent greed, companies are not in business to be a charity or a job in perpetuity.
You work for them, they pay you ( based on supply and demand and your agreement ) end of transaction. If they make 3% or 30% in profits does not change this.
If someone does not like this, they need to start their own business so they can call the shots, as well as take all the risk for little reward based upon some arbitrary profit margin that is not considered "greedy".

If companies make good profits, that means they have a good product that consumers want and are willing to buy at a price. How many lined up day 1 to get the new iPhone 5 ?

If the government is going to get involved in controlling or regulating greed, what is next laziness, lust, love ?

Being successful and having money is a by product of drive and ambition, not greed.
You mention Gordon, what was the line in the 1st movie ?
How many yachts do you need to water ski behind ?
- 'It's not about the money' was the answer to that question ( that I paraphrased ), it had to do with winning.

Are jobs and Woz the last great people of drive and ambition, as it is now socially unacceptable to have drive and ambition ?

When did the United States become a country not of winners, but whiners ?

 

I agree with what you are saying. A couple years ago I was watching a show about the uberwealthy who made their money themselves. The had one investment guru who had several hundreds of millions of dollars. He was saying at first it was about the money and buying newer, bigger and better things, but you can only buy so many newer, bigger, better things before it gets old and you've seen it before. That makes sense. Even in the middle class with the things we buy, how often do you buy something because it is newer, bigger, better only to discover a few days, weeks, or months later that it gives about the same joy as the old one you got rid of. Anyway this guru was saying the reason he still works 16-20 hours days is for the challenge of putting together and closing the deal not the money. He had everything he had wanted and had fully funded his daughters college education to what ever level they wanted to go.

I had to go to IMdB to get the quote and here it is: "In the last seven deals that I've been involved with, there were 2.5 million stockholders who have made a pretax profit of 12 billion dollars. Thank you. I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them! The point is, ladies and gentleman, 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. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much." There were many other lines in there that are incorrect, but this one I am accused of channeling. I don't necessarily subscribe to everything he said in the quote, but I do believe that greed is predictable and it is better to expect the person sitting across the table to be greedy than to be benevolent. That should lead you to take more precautions to protect your interests.